Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts Marketing Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Seems to have quite a lot of coverage in books on arts marketing and management. Theres coverage in The Routledge Companion to Arts Marketing (2013, Routledge) Arts Marketing Insights: The Dynamics of Building and Retaining Performing Arts Audiences (2011, Wiley), Arts Marketing (2007, Taylor & Francis), Strategic Management in the Arts (2013, Taylor & Francis), etc. There are 219 hits in google scholar. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As it is now, this subject does not seem notable, and I'm not sure if it ever could be, but I am happy to change my mind if someone volunteers to clean up and expand this article into something that meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps one more week will make a consensus more clear...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in these highly specialised marketing books is entirely trivial, passing mentions (mentions in people's CVs and the like) every one. The mention of the Arts Marketing Association in scholarly books about Arts Marketing should not really be a surprise (and no prejudice at all to the nominator for their WP:BEFORE), but there is no sustained or significant coverage in ANY of these titles to merit a pass of WP:GNG let alone NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related sources I found: Full page- classical-music-uk, 2 Mentions- heritagefund, 1 mention- museumsandheritage, Guardian artprofessional artprofessional theartnewspaper.

Delete. Although there are mentions in books, they are mostly passing mentions. Even the reference in the Routledge Companion looks like one line, in a contributor's biography. I'd have expected more coverage in that book if the organisation's activities are notable. This, about their mentoring scheme, looks like the most extended coverage, but reads WP:ROUTINE to me. I have looked at the Google scholar results, of which the most substantial looks as if it is in the book Creative Arts Marketing; the introduction is by the then chair of the AMA, but apart from that the coverage is mostly in one paragraph and mainly gives the number of members in 2001 and a bit about training and events. It does mention that the organisation was created from two other local or regional orgs, so possibly there's a bit more out there in pre-internet sources, but I'm not too hopeful. I did look at the British Newspaoer Archive - I don't have full access, but the search results were fairly minimal. The significant coverage found by Exclusive Editor in classical-music.uk reads like a press release and also looks like routine coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]