Deletion of Bollywood Hungama

Comment: Article depicts a site which is reliable for use as per our guidelines, but reliability does not automatically bestow notability. The site has been latched on to ''passing mentions'' in tons of reputed websites which have also used their reports directly or indirectly, but notability demands that significant coverage and some material ''about the site'' in third-party sources is necessary. After a lengthy search, I could find only two references (other than the ones in the article) (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bullish-on-bollywood/909308/ 1 and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XKFIAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Bollywood+Hungama%22&dq=%22Bollywood+Hungama%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lTaeT-j9HILprQeLqOhV&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBQ 2). I doubt if these are competent enough to contain the article and on par with . From what I can comprehend, this is a case of  where the article just seems on border between notability and non-notability, making its contingency inconceivable beyond . But again, what is competent and what is not is again subjective. If more sources could be found, the article's stance would escalate, but until then, it remains as a mere paradigm of bare notability. Special:Contributions/Secret of success|Secret of success
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BARE||WP:TWOPRONGS)