Deletion of Rachael Faye Hill

Comment: Look at the sources in the article: six are news coverage based on one event, three don't mention her and the Biography section is totally unsourced. A clear failure of  and indeed  to my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . Significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the ''Daily Mail'' piece. While I know that AfD doesn't set precedent, we did go through this before with Heenal Raichura, and the outcome there was to keep the article. However, that's secondary; the coverage of Hill lets the article stand on its own merits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The only thing remarkable about her is that she has qualified as a doctor at an unusually young age. This is not only a case of , but also one event which, while perhaps of mild interest, is not really significant. It is the sort of detail which would merit a brief passing mention in an article about someone notable for other reasons, but not sufficient to justify a whole article in the absence of other significance or notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: My feelings on this article is that it has gained enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. I myself saw a full page story on this person in the Daily Mail as well as another publication (I believe the Sunday Times). As well as this, my daughters Sociology class have discussed this during their class time to judge whether pepople jumping ahead of others in school is morally or ethically correct. Due to the fact that there has been both wide spread coverage in the media as well as an issue that is prompting discussion I believe that the article should be included and should not be removed. I believe there would also be a genuine use of the OSE   argument as DougWeller has pointed out above that a previous Afd discussion found in a similar topics favour
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I think the article should be kept for several reasons. First of all, under  rules, Dr Hill has achieved a large amount of media coverage which  states means that an article should be kept, even if there has been only a single event. Secondly, one-time age related achievements are included all over Wikipedia, for example David Dicks was the youngest person to sail non-stop and solo around the world. Also, I think that removing the article from Wikipedia would potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future. As far as I can see, there are a lot of arguments for why this article should stay, however the only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred around opinion and go against Wikipedia rules such as  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:OSE)

Comment: Trivial  coverage of a real-life Doogie Howser.  News-buzz-of-the-day human interest stories are not worth an entry in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)