Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Music Circuit (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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Asian Music Circuit
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously nominated for deletion (by myself) in March 2008 and deleted. It was recreated this morning, and my initial inclination was to speedy delete it as a recreated article. However, the article as written does seem to assert notability a little better, although it remains without independent sources. I was hesitant to simply speedy delete it, so wanted to bring it here again. My opinion is still delete. (And this time, if it is deleted again, I am inclined to salt.) --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! It's the UK's designated national promoter of Asian music which receives in excess of £500,000 annually from the UK taxpayer. Is that notable enough? I've added external references from the BBC, Royal Albert Hall, National Portrait Gallery and The Sun - do these suffice? --Grantbb (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks OK to me. Getting a minor Royal to open your place is one thing, but getting Charles and Camilla shows a bit more importance. As to the refs, they're not going to get front page headlines, but if they're still Arts Council funded after 20 years they must be doing something worthwhile - and of note. I don't think the Arts Council hands out money without wanting to see some results. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. Also, the indescribably unpleasant website means the online presence is pretty lacklustre, but this shouldn't affect their reputation in the RW. Grantbb (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep; It's not great but I think this passes our notability threshold. Internet sources are limited but I think some real-world research might turn this into quite a nice article. bobrayner (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2011 (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.