Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubina Gillani


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Rubina Gillani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing significant in coverage to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm  (talk)  07:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing shows why she would be considered a notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Sources, taken together suggest notability, and they include in-depth here and a paragraph here and interview here and coverage here and a mention here and a brief mention here and a mention here and some coverage here (mentioning one of her speeches). Here is her article in a medical journal. Overall I think the sources add to a keeper (maybe weak keep but I'm leaning toward regular keep) even though the current state of the article is rather bloated and patchwork; she's a significant player in the eye-health medical world of Pakistan. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tomwsulcer.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Because she is a representative then such kind of coverage will exist. We need coverage which discusses the individual so we can have an encyclopedic entry. Störm   (talk)  08:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh--Trivial name-mentions do not make a subject pass GNG.But, still not convinced enough to cast a !vote either side. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. promotional biography "In February 2012, Gillani visited the Ophthalmology Department of the Khyber Teaching Hospital " no actual accomplishments. promotionalism is a a even more important reason for deletion than dubious notability .  DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tomwsulcer. The article is well-sourced and there is substantial coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage to easily satisfy GNG. In addition to the citations in her article, I saw her work was extensively discussed in a book. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (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.