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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debobrato Mukherjee

[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)

Non-notable actor. Roles are mainly small roles, I could not find anything to support multiple significant roles. The sources are passing mentions, at best, many sources don't even mention this person at all. Ravensfire (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Ravensfire (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 21 sources on the page and not a single one of them have any indepth coverage on the subject. Even a simple Google search did not show any result with reliable secondary independent sources on the subject. Subject is a very minor actor with minor roles in movies and not notable to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBIO WP:NACTOR RangersRus (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ACTOR, WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - creator moved this to draft space in an apparent attempt to avoid the AFD. They earlier [1] moved it out of draft space - can this continue to force a deletion review rather than the creator again moving this out of draft without waiting for a review? The version they "accepted" had false sources, sources that didn't even mention this person and was pure made-up fluff to promote a bit-part actor. Ravensfire (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From WP:AFDEQ "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress ..." It is normally regarded as sneaky, though. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's been a bit [2] of promotional editing around this article. The version that was moved to main space [3] is so chock full of problems (WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources, sources about a different person, sources that don't mention this person) that this move is sneaky at best. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor can't bypass an AFD discussion by draftifying an article. I have returned it to main space and replaced the AFD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page was technically only tagged for two days, so let's allow a full seven days to transpire.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:Refbomb that fails all notability criteria. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear-cut example of how a large number sources is not an automatic sign of notability; the sources have to provide significant coverage of the topic, and these don't do that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 1 September 2024 (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.