Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturing Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 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. ManGoldin (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep 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 quite a while now. - Brianhe (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article. If anything, this is a WP:TOOSOON. ManGoldin (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The "top notch sources" referred to above consist of interviews and recycled press releases, not independent coverage, and I can find nothing better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Err ... no, did you read them? The Inc. 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 WP:BEFORE scan of recent news. These are some very puzzling AfD comments. - Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, just added a 1,300 word New York Times article Manufacture New York Provides Production Facilities to Independent Designers found thru the helpful WP:BEFORE 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? - Brianhe (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. ManGoldin (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 flabbergasts me. If this is the case, then what is notability? WP:GNG depends on being written about, no more, no less. I think I've beaten WP:SUSTAINED 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 newspaper of record. The other sources are good but "gravy" at this point IMHO. The depth likewise is good. What's left? - Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The NYT and Inc. articles provide sufficient coverage to address WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty easily, 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 WP:GNG pretty easily (Architectural Digest is the 3rd-best-cite and Women's Wear Daily has two pieces plus various trade-rags on top of the more general-news-outlets). Quick search turns up Harper's Bazaar piece from January 2015, and some hits at City of New York municipal government and at the Small Business Administration hearings,[smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2-22-2016_bland_testimony.pdf] too, which even when 'WP:INVOLVED' in partially funding the project tend to be treated as inherently-RS.  (This incubator is part of a larger quasi-privatized textile-industry-reboot, see MIT and NYT#2.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: NYT is a clear reliable source, backed up by INC. I don't know if the title should be changed to be Manufacture New York - but that is an entirely different topic for the talk page. In any case, certainly a notable article. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (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.