Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reema Debnath (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Debnath

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has not played a leading role in any film either. There's no significant coverage about her in the sources and in WP:BRFORE search. Google news also shows 0 coverage about this individual. Nxcrypto Message 12:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Women, and Actors and filmmakers. In2020 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One supporting role in major(ish) film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.

~~P.S. What is WP:BRFORE? I'm new in AfD, I mostly took part in counterpart project in Polish Wikipedia.~~ OK, I think you meant WP:BEFORE :) Tupungato (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page. Source 1 is from Mumbai mirror about her wrongful death news and matrimonial dispute. Source 2 is from Shillong Times is ok but this news media is not recognized nationally. Source 3 has nothing on the subject. Source 4 is repeat of Source 2. Source 5 in bengali language talks about very short role played by the subject in film PK. I do not find the actor passing WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is discussed in detail in the Mumbai Mirror article, but none of the other references provide significant information. Therefore, I agree with the nominator's assessment. Baqi:) (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's not enough SIGCOV to warrant this standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:21, 25 November 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.