:Yes, a paragraph called "cancelled projects" begs the question: Why do we care about these cancelled projects?  The institution had a project and did not proceed with it; this is par for the course of any large institution – they do not complete all of their proposed projects.  It seems doubtful that this content is of encyclopedic interest. On the face of it, it seems gratuitous (or even to suggest an interested agenda) to bring up these old issues, unless they have an important bearing on the institution as it exists. For example, if the projects caused the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars and caused the museum to have a financial crisis, or if they were the cause of turmoil at the institution, like the resignation of multiple Board members, or something like that, perhaps our readers need to know about it.  But just to say that they had a proposal, they had designs drawn up, they delayed the start of the project and ultimately abandoned it ... so what? If the point of the edit is to put forward some kind of legitimate criticism of the institution, I agree in general that our article should report any major criticism that really has encyclopedic value, but where is the fire behind this smoke? This seems like old stuff that is water under the bridge.