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 delete. Sandstein 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unit DX[edit]

Unit DX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable building. It might even qualify for CSD as there is no claim for notability. 2Joules (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed press release ref. Less well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Less well referenced with out the press release; other coverage is a start but very local and this is just a commercial building that rents out space attempting to market itself on Wikipedia. We've deleted far better sourced pages. WP:TOOSOON.Moresie (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There oughta be a proper List of business incubators (was a redlink, which I am just now redirecting to Business incubator#List of business incubators). The current list there is very short and provides no context, no details about the few mentioned there, while there are in fact many members (hundreds? split into country subcategories) of Category:Business incubators. If there were a proper list, then this one might possibly be included into it and this article redirected/merged there, assuming this does not meet GNG for standalone notability. But it is unclear what standards for list-item inclusion/notability should be. I hesitate to add anything about this one to the current list. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON - at the moment its a building which the University wants to be an incubator Lyndaship (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I hate to say it, because it is my kind of place, but it looks like it might be of local interest only. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The coverage by Chemistry World suggests that it is of national interest within the United Kingdom. Not TOOSOON: "The centre is currently home to 23 scientific and engineering companies and hosts more than 70 workers." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you give a link to where those figures appear? The reference in the article to Chemistry world doesn't give any employment figures Lyndaship (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The place is definitely up and running, there are a bunch of tenants. I just haven't been able to find secondary sources other than Chemistry World.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage seems pretty insignificant mostly from local sources (even considering the Chemistry World source). It's essentially lab space, so I don't think anyone can reasonably argue a keep here for something like that unless it becomes notable for work being done there (i.e., TOOSOON arguments above). Simply being covered by sources or having references does not satisfy WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.