The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has an interesting history. It was written in the main by the curator, and looks to be very much a promotional vehicle to advertise the gallery. That editor then himself removed the speedy deletion tag on 'his own' article. Even so the gallery itself has laudable ambitions. Despite the numerous mentions in sundry media I'm not sure that it is actually notable, though the Marriott parentage may be sufficient notability. Many of the mentions seem to be 'mentions in passing' so to speak.
So, since I am not sure, I'm asking the community to look at the article with care, not to be bamboozled by the number of references, but to follow them (and consider removing irrelevant ones so that the wood may be seen from the trees here), and to reach a consensus about whether it should remain, and, indeed, in what form. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]