Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Carolina Research Authority


 * 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The result was Keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina Research Authority

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This state-created organization fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I removed lots of cites to junk political blogs, including the one run by this organization, The Nerve. Very little exists as far as substantial coverage of the group, ignoring the massive amount of unreliable coverage that exists only among dot-orgs, coverage by the SC legislature (a related party that publishes legally required reviews of the SCRA), and lots of passing mention in stories about lots of other subjects. Here's the best coverage I found. JFHJr (㊟) 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see an article in need of improvement here, not deletion.  A state agency would have a pretty high likelihood of notability to start with, and there's hundreds of hits at GNews and HighBeam.  Many of these are press releases but many more are from reliable sources, and they show coverage of this agency's formation, an early constitutional challenge to its authority , assorted activities , public controversy over salaries , and more.  This 2006 newspaper article  or , for example, is extensive and informative.  I'd also note that while a source related to the agency would not help to establish notability, it may be used per WP:SELFPUB to verify noncontroversial facts about the agency. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles found by Arxiloxos establish notability very well.  Note that agency was created in 1983, so much coverage of its origin would be in print sources that aren't available online.  Ammodramus (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the excellent sources Arxiloxos found, I see significant coverage in books, such as Legal Aspects of Doing Business in North America, The dynamics of technology-based economic development state science and technology indicators, National Regulation of Space Activities, and National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication - Issue 967.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:46, 24 March 2013 (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.