Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahar Dasgupta


 * 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)

Jahar Dasgupta

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Shows, plus film, indicate notability, but need referencing. Article needs total clean-up, and is much too close to one of the websites. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- this person appears to be notable, hence the web references in the article. On the english wikipedia we need to consider the notability of "foreigners" more, who may not appear to be notable as they are irrelevant in english culture/language, however they may be notable in other languages/cultures and the references to these people may be published in other languages. Just a point. AndreNatas (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm not so convinced by the web references given in the article, which don't look that reliable. I also don't think the film about him reveals much - anyone can make a film and we don't know if it was broadcast, or whether it's just the work of a friend. The solo exhibitons include no significant venues, and his works, according to his website, are held in private collections, but not museums. However, the reviews on the artist's website meet the basic WP:BIO criteria of multiple third-party sources: .--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - The reviews posted by the artist are not above what any working artist would have, i.e. they are normal trivial notice generated by exhibition. WP:BIO requires higher recognition than that. Article should be deleted unless such references are added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Yes, there can be a systemic bias against non-English speaking artists (or rather artists from non-English speaking nations), but I don't think that applies in this case. I believe we need to maintain a higher standard regardless of country of origin.  freshacconci  speak to me  14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep per above, but this article really needs work. - Modernist (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the creator of the article is User:Jahar.dasgupta. We may have a conflict of interest here, but based on the article, he does seem notable. Editorofthewiki 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.