Deletion of Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition)

Comment: Common practice and notability are not even remotely the same thing, but LibStar tries to link the two. The only relevant question is notability. The gallery in question is undoubtedly one of the most important in Australia, and the exhibition was an enquiry into the Australian nation's social history via a 30-year retrospective of work by noted social documentary photographers such as Max Dupain and David Moore (photographer). True, galleries hold exhibitions all the time, but nationally important art galleries don't hold exhibitions as significant as this one all the time. According to , LibStar has a duty to investigate the article history and the subject before nominating it for deletion and, as part of that, make a 'good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist'. But the reality is that LibStar hasn't even properly read the article, which includes a link to an 850 word review in the leading daily newspaper published in one of Australia's state capitals (Australia only has one truly national general interest daily newspaper). Though the links aren't yet attached, there is plenty of other coverage, including a http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/05/28/2912657.htm?site=adelaide television interview of a participating photographer that was carried by the Australian national broadcaster. The link to that was recently pasted in another of LibStar's AfDs, as part of the refutation by another user and in part of the discussion that LibStar explicitly responded to, and LibStar should therefore be well aware of it. Again, LibStar seems to be deliberately ignoring evidence rather than trying to find it so that the article can be strengthened. The call for deletion is unwarranted.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I agree, one exhibition is not worthy of its own article, unless it was very extraordinary and/or influential. Having said that, there is tons of ther stuff that also should go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: It's my view that the sources mentioned aren't quite enough to meet .  The three sources given here and in the article do discuss the exhibition in some depth but I don't think that's quite enough as exhibitions etc are always going to get a certain amount of "what's on" coverage and the organisers will obviously be pushing for that sort of coverage.  As such, ideally, I'd like to see coverage from after the exhibition has finished.  I will happily reconsider my !vote if such sources, or a significant number of extra sources like the current one, are found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There are numerous hits that cover the event but most do it as routine journalism, and there's nothing that points to any lasting significance (i.e. to the point where notability becomes not temporary). The |usual caveats applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Usual caveats (WP:USUAL)