Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Rabbit Gallery

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Rabbit Gallery[edit]

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

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. There has been very infrequent mention of the subject in Sydney newspapers and art related literature with almost no mention outside Sydney. Interestingly, the article includes the navbox {{Sydney landmarks}}, which doesn't mention this gallery. AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The sources cited merely mention the gallery in passing but do not constitute significant coverage. Terence7 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are articles about this gallery - far from passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim of no significant coverage is contradicted by a search of sources. The article already cites two articles in which the gallery is the focus. Here is another one at CNN[1] and one at China Daily.[2]. Here's a recent piece in The Australian that describes it as an "astonishing amount of contemporary Chinese art -- it's thought to be one of the world's largest and most significant collections." [3] The gallery website has a long list of other potential sources.[4] forgot to sign, sorry--Arxiloxos (talk), posted at 00:12, 17 March 2012, signed at 07:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Arxiloxos has done enough to show notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos, who has shown that the gallery passes WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2012 (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.