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 and improve. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jahar Dasgupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a non-notable artist and has been created/ edited by the subject. The external links go to personal/ advertising sites. This article has been already been speedily deleted once. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added to the article shows that the film had a screening, and was picked up by the Hindustan Times.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--what you seem to be saying is that you do not accept the current standard as the right level. But the present standard, whatever one individually may think of it, is the consensus. The film by a significant filmmaker is certainly sufficient. Personally, I think the current rule, of reviews or prizes or major collections makes a perfectly good internationally applicable standard. DGG (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current standard is not in question. The question is, does this article meet the standard? The cited readable articles fall on the trivial side. There are claims that other references are not trivial, but this is a case where you have to prove it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (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.