Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Carolina Research Authority
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 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XYUsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zs0EAAAAIBAJ&dq=south-carolina-research-authority&pg=6674%2C5779365http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gWEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=584EAAAAIBAJ&dq=south-carolina-research-authority&pg=5933%2C639598, an early constitutional challenge to its authority http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1UosAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ps4EAAAAIBAJ&dq=south-carolina-research-authority&pg=5994%2C159548, assorted activities http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2nFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IQsNAAAAIBAJ&dq=south-carolina-research-authority&pg=1250%2C2191527http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119695982.htmlhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-274773.html, public controversy over salaries http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cxhPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xh8EAAAAIBAJ&dq=south-carolina-research-authority&pg=6907%2C2929701, and more.  This 2006 newspaper article http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-145536560.html or http://www.scra.org/clips/clip0508.shtml, 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  to verify noncontroversial facts about the agency
— User:Arxiloxos, 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SELFPUB (Wikipedia:Verifiability)