Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz: The result was no-consensus with paltry participation.  In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG .  There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name.  The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability.  The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted.  Lenny Marks ( talk ) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  Lenny Marks ( talk ) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage in news sources here: [14] , [15] , [16] (and more. A google news search for: [museo interactivo Xalapa] catches the various different names of this institution).  It also appears as an attraction of the city in guide books: [17] .  Furius ( talk ) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Furius has identified enough sources to show notability.  The Mexican Government entry gives information that could be used to expand the article.  A search on images confirms that this  is a substantial museum discussed by many sources.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Furius @ Aymatth2 , thank you for collecting additional sources for the article.  The problem I found was that the news sources are generally lacking wp:sigcov (One mentions that protesters were outside the museum but doesn't discuss the institution itself at all, another's entire reference is that a minister discusses money in the budget for the museum and the last is almost an exact copy of a source that is already in the article [18] about workers being fired.) The guide book entry, though, might count.  Unless you disagree with my analysis of the sources individually, I guess the question becomes whether the several non-significant mentions collectively constitute SigCov here.  Thoughts?  -- Lenny Marks ( talk ) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The museum is run by the State of Veracruz.  The Mexico Government entry would count as reliable, independent and in-depth.  I have not read the many news articles, but yes, 25 separate sources giving a paragraph each on some aspect or event of the museum would cumulatively count as significant in-depth coverage.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aymatth2 thanks, I had missed that link in your previous comment.  I will add a reflist to the article and withdraw the nomination.  Lenny Marks ( talk ) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep