Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renuka David


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 23:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Renuka David

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBIO. Two of the sources are dead; one is an unreliable YouTube source; and one, although reliable, only briefly mentions the subject. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The only reliable source I can find is the Hindu one already in the article, and it doesn't cover her in detail. There isn't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The article is also overly promotional in tone. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The above problems have been addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizm (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the references that have been added are just links to websites and don't mention her (eg,, , ,  and ), and the few that are proper sources are not independant (eg , -this one is PR). The only exceptions are the Hindu on I mentined above and possibly this one, though is seems a bit like PR to me. There is still not enough here to meet GNG or NBIO, and it is still overly promotional. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * delete raw WP:PROMO replete with fake refs. oy. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is a pure advertisement. However, that is not only problem. The bigger issue is that she has not received 'significant' coverage in reliable sources. I'm seeing only trivial coverage of her in reliable sources. Anup   [Talk]  02:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - concerns about reliability of sources, incidental mentions, and promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In India, it is mostly paid publicity/PR that happens. The fact that a couple of clear mentions like in The Hindu have been received, is acceptable. Not all good works receive publicity. I guess that needs to be taken into consideration too.Suresh menon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.