Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhasset Specialty Company


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. A further seven days since my (final) relist and HighKing's contribution remains unresponded to and unrefuted. On that basis, that is the premier contribution to this debate and has sufficient support (nominator plus one other), and therefore consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Manhasset Specialty Company

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ref #1 seems to be unrelated. Ref #2 is just primary. No other WP:42 sources found in WP:BEFORE, thus NN. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) *Delete Agreed with nom, the first source is completely irrelevant and the second is the company itself. No secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my delete and changing it to a keep based on the sources found below. I don't agree that all of these are significant coverage but at least a couple are. Someone should now improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Music. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a company nearly everyone in the music industry knows and has used products of (and I say that with very little hyperbole). Unfortunately, being a music stand manufacturer will not net a lot of coverage. There is some coverage in trade magazines (since it is a surprisingly large company) and local news, but I honestly do not know how far they will go:
 * "Manhasset Stands 80 Years and still standing strong"
 * "Singing the Praise of a Pretreatment Change"
 * "Standing the test of time: Quality, innovation and workers' pride keep Manhasset Specialty Products' music stands on top"
 * "Manhasset Music Stand"
 * Sexless Oysters and Self-tipping Hats: 100 Years of Invention in the Pacific Northwest (p. 230)
 * Hopefully this is enough for, what I think is, an important company. Why? I Ask (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Any reliable, significant coverage found is primarily about the company's music stand - not the company itself. SailingInABathTub 🛁 15:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If their product is notable, then the company is at least deserving of a mention. But it would be odd to have the article focused on the music stand and not the broader topic of the company and its history. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If their product is notable, then there will be sufficient sources to write an article about the product. Notability of a product doesn't transfer to notability of the company - see WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the company is synonymous with the product. It's all they make. That's why WP:NCORP says: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: While a consensus just about exists here to delete based on strength of argument relative to policy, I want to give the two editors !voting 'keep' (and anyone else so interested) a chance to reply to HighKing's statement, which has come very late in the piece. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company.  HighKing++ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete as mentioned above by users. Skt34 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.