@Citrivescence: Please remove the tag, this speedy deletion nomination is absurd. See also my reply here. Ymnes (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This page should not be speedily deleted because... See my reply here --Ymnes (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymnes: You may disagree with the CSD but your language is inappropriate. The page was tagged because the tone and verbiage reads like an advertisement, and the sources do not establish notability because three are primary sources and the others are not significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This is not about whether the museum is noteworthy or inherently notable. Based on the content as reviewed, it was purely promotional. Citrivescence (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is completely untrue ("three are primary sources"). There is one (number 2) that gives extra evidence of what has been said in number 1. And bias is not at stake either. It's a neutral article. Ymnes (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymnes: It is not worthwhile to go back and forth, especially since you are acting personally offended. I checked the references again and while I was wrong that three are primary, together they do not meet GNG guidelines. If the speedy deletion is declined, a different reviewer will have to look at it because I don't plan to take further action on it. Citrivescence (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, I am not personally offended in my answer at any means. I have given 5 sources. Number 2 was just supporting number 1. That leaves 4 sources. All of them four are correct sources. Next step is if those sources call it a encyclopedic article. First answer is that a museum allways is, the next is formulated in the reply you give yourself: you have found at least one non-primary source, namely. Personally I don't agree to that, because reading the articles there is in each of them secondary material in it; that's why I call them four secundary sources. Ymnes (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
