Deletion of Nadya Gill

Comment: meets  and  per {{ping|Lourdes}}. Article could use expansion, not deletion per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: definitely fails , and after a review of the sourcing does not quite meet  yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:GNG)

Comment: Qualifies on |BASIC easily and even on |GNG per the following reliable sources which discuss Gill extensively:http://www.concacaf.com/article/canadas-gill-rises-to-occasion-at-cwu17 Concacaf news report feature on Gill titled ''Canada’s Gill rises to occasion at CWU17'', http://www.quchronicle.com/2015/09/terrific-transition/ Quchronicle news feature on Gill, http://sportzedge.com/2016/08/23/17-year-old-sophomore-nadya-gill-leads-quinnipiac-soccer-into-2017/ Sportzedge news report feature on Gill containing 4-5 paragraphs of reviewing Gill and subsequently an interview too; the report is titled ''17-year-old sophomore Nadya Gill leads Quinnipiac soccer into 2016 season'', There's one more feature report on Gill (http://q30television.com/2016/08/16/quinnipiac-womens-soccer-kicks-off-2016-season/) which can be used within the article, but as it is a University TV channel, I am not considering it. Nevertheless, the other reports comfortably put the subject above BASIC and GNG. Most of these have been included in the subject's article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: Clearly meets  as per sources quoted above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I initially thought of , but there is enough here for GNG. This discussion seems to be following the usual pattern whereby sources are demanded, then when they're provided there is the pretence that they're not good enough sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Fails |NFOOTY, but passes wider |GNG. Significant, |non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTY||WP:GNG||WP:MILL)

Comment: Obviously fails , and I don't think that twiddly student newspapers and a couple of local blogs read by a collective audience of 17 are enough to carry through   —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources being bruited about here do ''not'' confer passage of . One (Quchronicle) is the student newspaper at her own university, which is a class of sourcing that is specifically ''deprecated'' as not able to carry notability at all (which Lourdes already knows, because they ''did'' deprecate another piece of student media sourcing as not assisting the case — they just maybe didn't realize that ''this'' source was ''also'' student media); one (Sportsedge) is the ''local'' television station ''in'' her university's local media market, and is thus not ''enough'' to carry notability as an article's ''only'' GNG-eligible source; CONCACAF is a |primary source since she's ''in'' CONCACAF. So no, BASIC and GNG have ''not'' been met by those sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)