Talk:Virginia BioTechnology Research Park

I've added the park because it is a major employment and commercial presence in downtown Richmond that is not represented anywhere on Wikipedia. It should be noted that manye. of the tenants of the park - the United Network for Organ Sharing, Altria, the Virginia Biotechnology Association - are housed in the park. Its significance is great, as it the park is a major employer in the region and is home to hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. Also, under the category "Science parks in the United States," it is not the largest (nowhere near it) but certainly not the smallest of those listed.
 * I nominated it for deletion because there are no sources for it's notability, and I was unable to find any after a search. If you have any sources for it's notability that meet WP:GNG/WP:GEOFEAT, put them in. Skrelk (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool; just went in and added a bunch of references, hopefully that'll do it. Thanks for the tips.  jeffkelleyrva (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of sources. It's about the significance and notability of the sources. Phillip Morris' website just says they have a research complex there. Another one is an article about the science park looking for funding, and another one is local business coverage. It's mostly routine local business coverage.Skrelk (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your point, and can dig up more references; however, compared to some of the other entries in the U.S. science/research park category, this one is much more filled out and significant. And when considering the economic impact and employment figures there, as well as the prominence of some of its tenants, I guess I'm a little lost on what defines "notability" as it would seem to meet the standards that I've read. It's not only a research park but a major district in the city. If there is a specific standard of notability that needs to be met, I'm all ears. jeffkelleyrva (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a specific standard. WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Basically, if you can find a couple reliable, significant secondary sources on the economic impact, that would probably do it. Skrelk (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How we looking now? Up to standards? Jeffkelleyrva (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It still is all routine local coverage Skrelk (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * References 4 and 5, economic impact, were added yesterday late. Jeffkelleyrva (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)