Deletion of Jamal Malik (character)

Comment: Just "a" character?  How about we better describe this character contextually. He's THE MAIN character in ''Slumdog Millionaire ''. It would seem sensible that this major character in this extremely notable film has been the recipient of analysis and commentary, and that a separate article on him would also seem sensible. Is the nominator's argument that because the article has| not been improved that it cannot ever be? Did he look before stating that a lack of effort (by others) leads him to believe there are none "?  We do not decide to toss a notable topic because  |no one's working on it ''right now''. The AFD template gives poor results, so |in looking further, I offer additional ''Find sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT||WP:NOEFFORT||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as a character that meets the |general notability guidelines. In particular I quote, ''"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."'' At the same time, the guidelines establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Obviously we do not create character articles for the main characters of every film just because reviews make more than trivial mentions about them. It is generally accepted that multiple characters can be covered within a film article. The question is what entails an article split in which we have a focus on the character, even if he or she only appears in one film. I think that the best gauge of that is retrospective (and usually academic) coverage because of the studied observations made. ''Slumdog Millionaire'' is most definitely a studied film (https://www.worldcat.org/title/slumdog-phenomenon-a-critical-anthology/oclc/816030646&referer=brief_results this being the latest such study). I've added an "Analysis" starter section that helps indicate that Jamal is a key character, not just one of several, in this well-studied film. There will be redundancy, to be sure. I can foresee an Analysis of Slumdog Millionaire|Analysis of ''Slumdog Millionaire'' sub-article, and Jamal will inevitably be covered in that scope. I think that in addition to that, it is also possible to have a character-centric scope with related such observations. Other examples: Tony Montana was posted for AfD but was kept with ease. Buffalo Bill (character) is a secondary character that nonetheless had worthwhile observations (that I added to rescue that article from AfD). There is also T-X, for which there was a merge discussion, but I believe I provided adequate evidence (that surprised even me) that indicated the potential of a stand-alone article. I think that potential also exists here; we can compile observations about this character, and I've added a section to indicate that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: No subject is inherently notable, but a character can be notable for being in a notable film. Invariably you will simply end up with two notable subjects, the film and the character; it does not have to be one or the other. Furthermore,  should have been the nomination rationale, not an assumption about  or . I agree the |burden is on the editors to provide sources, but it's also on the community to decide whether a subject has notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:HEY||WP:MUST||WP:BURDEN)