Talk:McKibbin Street Lofts

message: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."
Also, see below.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.6.145 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability requires objective evidence

message: This looks like some urban factory where they made mattresses  or light bulbs or something. Was the first light bulb manufactured there? There must be literately thousands of these buildings all across America. Just because some "artists" currently live there does not make it notable. Did Andy Warhol live there, or was it a textile factory for the last hundred years. Just because _you_ live there does not make it notable, regardless of the awesomeness of your Pabst parties. Furthermore a mention in some Gawker article is not notability. Anyone can write a blog post, that is the definition of a blog. Was there an editor involved, was there any research done on this building for the article. Again, because some friend of a friend wrote something on a blog doesn't mean anything regardless of readership. A lot of people also bought the Weekly World News, should there be wikipedia articles about alien babies. If this continues, next thing you know every Hipster in Williamsburg is going to want to write a wikipedia article on the converted loft they currently live in, to re-enforce the awesomeness of the shitty building they're paying $3K a month to live in. In marketing terms, this is called "diluting the brand" every address in the world could potentially have its own wikipedia entry, but why. What thirteen year-old is going to look up "12 Main", or whatever. Also, Bushwick Brooklyn is definitely not known for its young, artistic population. Its known as a place to score some coke on a Friday night, and for the Housing projects in the neighborhood and historically for the riots that took place during the blackout of 1977. Because some self-referential art-school grads move to the same neighborhood does not make it Greenwich Village circa 1968. Again did Rothko or Jackson Pollock live there. No, then it is not notable. Delete please.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.6.145 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is this notable?

message: 255 McKibbin occupies a somewhat legndary place within Bushwick, a neighborhood in Brooklyn known for its young, artistic population.  Bushwick has been the subject of several articles in recent years in New York magazine and the New York Times.  255 McKibbin has a rich, colorful history, some of the stories of which have already been written up in this article and others of which will be added shortly.  The building has already been mentioned in an existing wikipedia article East Williamsburg, but the link was previously empty. Remote table 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not yet demonstrate that this topic is covered in enough sources for us to have an article here.  Blog posts don't really count for anything.  The above mentions don't really do much for us either. Friday (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Blog posts don't really count for anything."  You've got to be kidding.  More people read Gawker than most local newspapers.  Does the fact that it's on the internet make it less legitimate than a printed paper?  That's exactly the same kind of prejudice that people have against wikipedia.  Don't be a net-hater.  Gawker is a legitimate news source, as is Gotham Gazette. Remote table 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave aside whether Gawker is a good source or not in general, then.  This particular page, written by "Josh"- is he "on staff" at Gawker or do they let readers post too?  I can't tell from looking at it.  Even if we assume the best, all we have in a little blurb about the change of address.  Not much on which to base an encyclopedia article.  The other sources you mention above are far less useful than this one.  I still see nothing resembling the kinds of sources that would allow an article.  So where did the information in the article come from?  Sounds like it's all first-hand knowledge to me, which is something we want to avoid using on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability 

message: Are there enough citations yet to remove the references tag?  Still working on the notability tag... Remote table 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still working on adding more citations, too, but right now there's only one section that doesn't have a citation, so can we remove the tag? Remote table 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the citations tag, as the article now has numerous citations and almost all sections are cited. Remote table 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: I added internal posts, bolded the subject in the first sentence, and gave it a category, so I removed the wikify tag. Remote table 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: wikify

message: I congratulate the people that have created this article, I have tried in the past and had my article removed due to a notability issue as well. It is certainly something that is incredibly notable and legendary. This building and the one across the street are known throughout New York City. I made minor changes to things that I knew were incorrect. Most notably the fact that there are five floors in the building, the fact that the unit ranges were drastically off, and the fact that there are 75 units in the building as opposed to 73, and that five are duplexes. The five floor thing is obvious. The unit sizes come from units that I have either personally measured or know people that have measured and the amount of units come from discourse with the landlord. I think the reason these mistakes may have been made is that due to the haphazard nature of the building, records are not always accurate. I think for the wikipedia article we should choose the correct version over the improperly recorded version.
Fyi there used to be only 4 floors, technically one is still a basement. They hired some architecture firm to illegally turn it into 5 floors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.72.97 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Minor Changes 

message: The event removed on 7/27/07 did not take place at 255 McKibbin, but elsewhere in Brooklyn, in late February of 2006.  See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/02/27/2006-02-27_fdny_water_leak_hunt_yields_150_pot_plan.html
--BFDhD 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major events

message: what happened to the pop culture and book references about how cool this building is? was...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.2.153 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hipness 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McKibbin Street Lofts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205220052/http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/000/079000/B000079582.PDF to http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/000/079000/B000079582.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)