306:
manufacturing. Just because an article is mentioned in sources, does not necessarily mean its notable. This company has done nothing notable other than receive a small grant, other recipients of the grant do not have
Knowledge (XXG) articles. Startups have a whole ecosystem of "press" that they receive at their inception, that indicates potential, but not notability. I believe you in that you have no COI, but am curious as to why this company merits a Knowledge (XXG) article. If anything, this is a WP:TOOSOON.
276:
as creator. It is reasonably well sourced from top notch sources (Inc., Architectural Digest, Industry Week, WWD), and I feel neutrally written. For the record I have no connection to the company, founder, funding organization, etc. and maintain a strict COI separation as stated on my userpage for
305:
Most, if not all sources that are listed are not aimed at this company, rather they are aimed at the advent of manufacturing in that area of NYC. If anything, this page should be deleted and then this company should be listed under the what companies received the grant under a page describing the
200:
This article is not notable and reads as promotion for the company and should be speedily deleted. If anything, it should be listed under the Wiki article for the grant, but there is no article for that as it itself is not notable. Startups can't be notable just because they were written about in
551:
I'm trying my best to be civil and will wait a bit for more conversation to develop here before replying again. But as I said, there are some very puzzling comments being made here, including yours: "being mentioned in articles...does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable". This
168:
94:
89:
436:
I think the main idea is that the page is WP:TOOSOON, as the article itself lacks a lot of depth as to why it's notable. The sources that back it don't shed a lot of light onto why its individually notable from the development of manufacturing in the area.
98:
81:
201:
association with a grant. Nothing has been written (or sourced) about this company since its near beginning in 2014. This page was found as it was linked from the founders name in a recently created Wiki article, which indicates promotion.
387:
article alone is over 2,500 words. Not a recycled press release. Also the initial del !vote saying "Nothing has been written...since 2014" is clearly incorrect as there are at least three sources from 2016 which were easily found in a
162:
85:
77:
69:
128:
407:
183:
689:
668:
604:
573:
527:
507:
446:
423:
401:
374:
315:
286:
264:
211:
150:
63:
121:
515:
495:
612:, it is a one-paragraph stub that could actually use a little expansion (NYT is mentioned in 'further reading' but not incorporated into the body-prose), but satisfies
560:
by showing coverage in 2013, 2014 and 2016. The sources are relatively unimpeachable; we generally take NYT coverage on a topic to indicate notability, as the national
144:
140:
190:
365:. The "top notch sources" referred to above consist of interviews and recycled press releases, not independent coverage, and I can find nothing better.
654:
156:
414:
tools at the top of this page. Apparently they thought it was important before the doors even opened. Is this also a recycled press release? -
646:
466:
335:
230:
660:
480:
366:
349:
244:
17:
462:
331:
226:
656:
636:
708:
629:
40:
664:
475:
370:
344:
239:
255:
601:
61:
557:
457:
442:
326:
311:
221:
207:
704:
685:
624:
has two pieces plus various trade-rags on top of the more general-news-outlets). Quick search turns up
564:. The other sources are good but "gravy" at this point IMHO. The depth likewise is good. What's left? -
260:
36:
680:- but that is an entirely different topic for the talk page. In any case, certainly a notable article.
640:
676:: NYT is a clear reliable source, backed up by INC. I don't know if the title should be changed to be
617:
621:
561:
176:
411:
389:
539:
595:
569:
546:
523:
503:
419:
397:
282:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
703:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
681:
632:
625:
613:
590:
553:
438:
307:
203:
565:
519:
499:
431:
415:
393:
300:
278:
645:(This incubator is part of a larger quasi-privatized textile-industry-reboot, see
115:
408:
Manufacture New York
Provides Production Facilities to Independent Designers
643:' in partially funding the project tend to be treated as inherently-RS.
556:
depends on being written about, no more, no less. I think I've beaten
471:
340:
235:
78:
Manufacturing
Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech
70:
Manufacturing
Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech
392:
scan of recent news. These are some very puzzling AfD comments. -
589:
The NYT and Inc. articles provide sufficient coverage to address
697:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
453:
322:
217:
552:
flabbergasts me. If this is the case, then what is notability?
650:
406:
By the way, just added a 1,300 word New York Times article
111:
107:
103:
175:
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
711:). No further edits should be made to this page.
254:Struck content from confirmed sock above, per
516:list of Business-related deletion discussions
496:list of New York-related deletion discussions
8:
514:Note: This debate has been included in the
494:Note: This debate has been included in the
513:
493:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
383:Err ... no, did you read them? The
24:
639:hearings, too, which even when '
635:municipal government and at the
1:
637:Small Business Administration
64:20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
690:17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
669:13:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
605:14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
574:23:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
528:23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
508:23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
447:23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
424:23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
402:22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
375:21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
316:21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
287:20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
265:11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
212:19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
728:
620:is the 3rd-best-cite and
700:Please do not modify it.
628:piece from January 2015,
32:Please do not modify it.
410:found thru the helpful
277:quite a while now. -
678:Manufacture New York
618:Architectural Digest
562:newspaper of record
622:Women's Wear Daily
610:Keep pretty easily
659:
631:and some hits at
543:
530:
510:
484:
465:) is a confirmed
353:
334:) is a confirmed
248:
229:) is a confirmed
719:
702:
644:
633:City of New York
599:
550:
537:
478:
460:
450:
435:
347:
329:
319:
304:
263:
242:
224:
214:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
57:
34:
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
715:
709:deletion review
698:
626:Harper's Bazaar
616:pretty easily (
597:
544:
470:
452:
429:
339:
321:
298:
259:
234:
216:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
714:
713:
693:
692:
671:
661:47.222.203.135
607:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
511:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
404:
378:
377:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
290:
289:
270:
269:
268:
267:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
712:
710:
706:
701:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
672:
670:
666:
662:
657:
655:
652:
648:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
606:
603:
602:
600:
592:
588:
585:
584:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
548:
541:
540:edit conflict
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
492:
491:
482:
477:
473:
472:GeraldoAbbson
468:
464:
459:
455:
449:
448:
444:
440:
433:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
368:
367:86.17.222.157
364:
361:
360:
351:
346:
342:
341:GeraldoAbbson
337:
333:
328:
324:
318:
317:
313:
309:
302:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
275:
272:
271:
266:
262:
261:North America
257:
256:WP:SOCKSTRIKE
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
241:
237:
236:GeraldoAbbson
232:
228:
223:
219:
213:
209:
205:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
699:
696:
677:
673:
609:
594:
586:
558:WP:SUSTAINED
547:JuliaCameron
428:
384:
362:
297:
273:
199:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:Juliancolton
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
682:TheMagikCow
641:WP:INVOLVED
467:sock puppet
336:sock puppet
231:sock puppet
163:free images
705:talk page
454:ManGoldin
439:ManGoldin
412:WP:BEFORE
390:WP:BEFORE
323:ManGoldin
308:ManGoldin
218:ManGoldin
204:ManGoldin
37:talk page
707:or in a
598:itsJamie
481:contribs
463:contribs
350:contribs
332:contribs
245:contribs
227:contribs
122:View log
39:or in a
566:Brianhe
520:Brianhe
500:Brianhe
432:Brianhe
416:Brianhe
394:Brianhe
301:Brianhe
279:Brianhe
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
614:WP:GNG
591:WP:GNG
554:WP:GNG
363:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
52:. –
16:<
686:talk
674:Keep
665:talk
649:and
596:OhNo
587:Keep
570:talk
524:talk
504:talk
476:talk
458:talk
443:talk
420:talk
398:talk
385:Inc.
371:talk
345:talk
327:talk
312:talk
283:talk
274:Keep
240:talk
222:talk
208:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
50:keep
653:#2.
651:NYT
647:MIT
483:).
469:of
352:).
338:of
247:).
233:of
191:TWL
120:– (
688:)
667:)
593:.
572:)
526:)
518:.
506:)
498:.
479:·
461:·
451:—
445:)
422:)
400:)
373:)
348:·
330:·
320:—
314:)
285:)
258:.
243:·
225:·
215:—
210:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
60:|
684:(
663:(
658:)
568:(
549::
545:@
542:)
538:(
522:(
502:(
474:(
456:(
441:(
434::
430:@
418:(
396:(
369:(
343:(
325:(
310:(
303::
299:@
281:(
238:(
220:(
206:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.