Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia BioTechnology Research Park


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Virginia BioTechnology Research Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG, WP:GEOFEAT, not notable. I attempted to find sources for notability, but I was unable to find any. Skrelk (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Richmond Times Dispatch, Free Lance Star) as well as some Associated Press coverage of the establishment of this research park as well as some ongoing coverage as it grows. Some of that coverage is already being used as reference material in the article. RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Richmond Times Dispatch article are trivial routine coverage of a local business. I don't see any AP articles Skrelk (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Free Lance Star is in another city, and coverage there has been ongoing so that alone demonstrates some interest in this subject beyond the local news. I'm seeing some mentions in the New York Times as well.  I recall a mention in Forbes as well. In whole its more than just trivial routine coverage, certainly enough to demonstrate notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep- Sufficient in-depth coverage by third party sources like the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Free Lance Star suffice. The coverage WP:ROUTINE refers to are "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" in which the coverage in this case is none of. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient independently published sourcing showing in the footnotes. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 25 January 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.