Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushika Fernandopulle


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Rushika Fernandopulle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What about the multiple, independent sources included in the citations? Would seem to meet the basic criteria ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]") Citations include the New Yorker, Boston Globe, and Wired among others. Zapfdingbats (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: You're missing the "significant coverage" part, which cannot solely consist of quotes from the subject, which must be about the subject, which can't be press releases or routine namedrops debarred by WP:ROUTINE. So let's examine the cites.  is about Renaissance Health, not about the subject.  is not only the same, it's plainly a press release.  is similar.  are about Iora Health, not the subject.  is a one-paragraph capsule description in a section with *hundreds* of the same, if not thousands. Lacking is any significant coverage of the subject, as the GNG requires.   Ravenswing   08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the citations you call out are merely there to substantiate factual elements of the entry; I don't agree with your characterization of the citations from the Boston Globe, NY Times and Wired, and am not sure why you did not point out the New Yorker citation in which the person the entry is about is one of the primary subjects of the article. Zapfdingbats (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Far from it; in fact, that New Yorker piece goes several thousand words before mentioning the subject at all -- it is a good cite for supporting the notability of Jeffrey Brenner, though, whose article could use some work -- and provides the subject almost no coverage: his mention in it are quotes from him and a brief description of how he assists a particular clinic, but tells us next to nothing about him. That the other citations are there to substantiate factual elements of the article I don't dispute, but none of them bolster notability.   Ravenswing   07:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

>>> I have added additional sources that I believe address your concerns. They are from reputable sources: Financial Times, American Medical Association & The Atlantic, and the articles are directly about the subject of the entry. Thanks! Zapfdingbats (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this article from the Financial Times meet your standards? Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health - At Work with the FT Or this interview with him in INC? Would adding these resolve the concerns you have? Thanks! Zapfdingbats (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it fails and how it can be improved? The article has multiple secondary sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. As SIGCOV states, the subject DOES NOT need to be the main topic of the source. In some of the sources, however, the subject is the main topic. I don't see how you can say this fails BIO or SIGCOV, it seems to meet the criteria easily. Zapfdingbats (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:57, 16 September 2017 (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.