Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Aruna Kalra bibliography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aruna Kalra bibliography[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was draftified several times and even declined at AfC which they turned a deaf ear to and recreated the same article under a different name. The subject is a non notable gynaecologist that lacks significant coverage from reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy (really? a bibliography article?), and salt. BD2412 T 06:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, is trying to bypass WP:AFC - Draft:Aruna_Kalra. If this article is kept, it should be renamed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this does not read like a bibliography now, does it? Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is improperly titled as a bibliography. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a bibliography. Does not meet WP:GNG -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could have been speedy deleted anyway. MarioGom (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no signs of notability. The oversue of Dr. is promotional. While that could be fixed, signs like this often indicate the subject is not meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.