Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debottam Majumdar

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debottam Majumdar[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)

The creator of the article is doing some personal research work. Like the editor is using youtube link, hottar link, tv channel website link to prove that the person is motable work. I think he is doing paid work. Parthhalder (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Parthhalder (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be enough good sources mixed in with the weaker ones to show that the subject meets notability guidelines, and you "thinking" that someone is being paid isn't a valid reason for deletion. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - feel free to remove weaker refs but it seems as though there's enough good sources (taking a brief look I mainly see news sites) that this is worth keeping. Remagoxer (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on standards of a foreign actor, she meets WP:NACTOR, some of these source may be considered non notable if it was for a US actor.Peter303x (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when I reviewed the article, it was clear that they passed WP:NACTOR. Not seeing any indications of UPE here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 17 April 2021 (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.