Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Innovation Campus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep. Following following 's rewrite, the consensus is to keep --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska Innovation Campus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * why, this is a valid campus. I gave a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaxspot (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. OpenTheWindows, sir! 17:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  An element of controversy hinted at, but no independent referencing. Otherwise, it's just an as yet unbuilt business park or some such. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep following MelanieN's rewrite. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but without prejudice to possible merger or redirect at Antelope Valley Project, which already has a discussion of the project, or at University of Nebraska–Lincoln. There is extensive news coverage in the Nebraska press of the Innovation Campus, which is being presented as a major new undertaking by the university.  This is shown in the Google News searches and this index at the Lincoln Journal Star; a few examples are .  The project does appear to still be in the planning stages, but I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies because given the amount of coverage, the project would probably be notable even if it isn't built, and the recent news coverage suggests that things are moving along quite firmly now.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As Arxiloxos says, the project has been getting quite a bit of press. I rewrote the article (which was very poorly done) and added several references; I think it qualifies as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After more research, there are now ten WP:RS references to news stories about this project. IMO it can clearly stand on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.