Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nooka


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nooka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines for notability. It is literally a one-man operation of founder Matthew Waldman (recently deleted) and some design interns. The article was authored by a user with WP:COI as a work of WP:PROMO and to this day, it is horribly misleading, full of twisted facts and outright lies. Perhaps it is most compelling to watch Matthew Waldman explain why his company is not notable in his Indiegogo video. Nooka has gotten some press for its designs but has not made them come to life as seen by what they |actually attempt to sell. Instead, Nooka seems to be an e-begging instrument. See failed Pothra and Fairy projects. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding the video which the nominator highlights (in which the owner/operator of the company states himself that it is "such a small company"), the only coverage that I can find are all linked from the article itself. Like the Forbes piece. Which seems to be as much about how small companies use crowdfunding sites to overcome their size/funding issues, as it is about the subject itself. And, frankly, would seem to further reinforce the nominators point (that this company is no more notable than any other small organisation or Indiegogo subscriber). Other pieces like this one seem to reinforce this point. (That, of the limited coverage that the subject has had, much of it seems to be actually focused on its lack of notability/prominence.) The COI/promo overtones in the original creation are also concerning. Personally I'd advocate deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the nomination mentions all kinds of things that are not relevant to determining notability (one man operation, e-begging, crowdfunding etc), since we have no policies that prevent articles on companies that have these qualities. A video by the article subject plays no role in determining notability either: we go by independent sources here. What is relevant to determining notability is that it has had coverage in lots of good publications (Guardian, New York Times, Wired, Deignboom etc.) Once notable, always notable. Meets GNG easily. Additional sources:
 * Profiled in the book "Design Entrepreneur: Turning Graphic Design Into Goods That Sell"
 * Coverage in TechCrunch
 * coverage in Wired Magazine
 * Coverage in Fast Company
 * More Wired coverage
 * Core 77 coverage
 * And so on... ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I mentioned such sources in the nomination, but I guess I will explain why I don't think they should count. If you read How to apply the criteria in WP:CORP, you will see they pretty much all fail. The book is a solid source, but it is an interview about Waldman/Nooka's efforts to bring prototypes into production. It is from 2008 and does not demonstrate notability or significance of this upstart company. TechCrunch, Wired, FastCompany coverage is all by freelance bloggers/writers and uses only media provided by Nooka (basically prototypes and illustrations). This fails a major criteria. Core77 lets designers submit projects for publication (they'll write about anybody). Also, the TechCrunch is about the crowdfunding for a new chronograph (photo of prototype) which despite the successful funding does not appear to have been manufactured. The Indiegogo is littered with complaints from people who paid but never got a watch. There's is no chronograph on any shopping site. Now, I know the WP:OR rule, but I don't think a contributed article about a prototype leads to notability for a whole company. Two of the articles you cite are about perfume and umbrellas neither of which appear to have gone into production. This lends to Nooka's notability how? The book explains how Nooka outsourced a run of 1000 watches. It is speculation, but I suspect they are still trying to sell inventory from that run. The fact that Waldman has been marketing savvy enough to get some press should not pass notability. There are probably tens of thousands of startups every year. If the article is kept it needs to be cleaned of lies such has having boutiques around the globe. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. You have some good comments on the sources, but also I think you are engaging in analysis of the company based on your opinion (It is speculation, but I suspect...) of their success as a company. The fact is, there is lots of coverage in many varied independent sources, which easily meets GNG and probably NCORP. WP:AUD says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.", and we have that here. It doesn't matter if they never shipped a product; nor does their financial health; we have any articles on bankrupt companies. Re your concerns, if you have sources for what you believe are their business failures, you should add them to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens, the article cannot stand as is. No, I don't have sources for the recent failures. Nooka didn't submit those to tech bloggers. I have the failed Kickstarter projects, but that is Primary and would constitute WP:OR. The Forbes source currently cited in the article describes a company on the brink and needing $75K from Indiegogo, but of course it has been cherry-picked to be used only for the date of foundation. The book cited is also misused. It claims a design was commissioned by Seiko, but in the book, it was years before Nooka existed and Waldman worked for Seiko in Japan. The article needs so much work because it is WP:PROMO if it is notable. The author, User:Msurtees10001 aka Michael Surtees, is a real life acquaintance of Waldman. --SVTCobra 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see you have concerns about the notability of the company. But to say it again, your speculation about who is friends with who in real life, how much the company has shipped and so on does not belong here. There are multiple sources in reliable independent publications. Please skip the speculation and stick to our established policies. You might also need to read the WP:OUTING policy as providing off-wiki information about someone's personal relationships is explicitly uncalled for. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that "lots of coverage" is *not* one of the criteria for establishing notability. It must be significant and in-depth coverage with intellectually independent content that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Regardless of whether SVTCobra is interpreting the content too much, the fact remains that not a single one of the references you meets these criteria.  HighKing++
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, this cv of Waldman states that Nooka watches are held at National Maritime Museum, and the Japanese Industrial Design Association Museum, have been unable to confirm this, it also lists a number of exhibitions including MOMA, again unable to confirm, they do/did sell the watches (see here), the watches also appear to be popular amongst some celebs, see here. on the fence, leaning over into the keep side, a bit more/confirmations required to push me in... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CVs are notoriously puffed up and obviously not a source. If the claim is true, it would go a long way toward what I'd consider notable. Harbour.Space University gives us another article with notability and COI issues. The school is only 3 years old. That CV also shows a new start date for Nooka all the way back in 2002 (the company keeps getting older). I have seen video interviews where he never claimed any of that. You can buy Nooka watches to this day. I mentioned that in nomination. Core77 offers to publish user submitted stories for designers. And reading that, Nooka may have heard of the glow-in-the-dark theme and sent watches to Kanye West. We all know celebrities get inundated with products for free. Oh, I just found that the Maritime Museum does have a Nooka watch but the Chinese made watch is not on display and they are asking readers if they know what it is. I wonder if Nooka sent it to them unsolicited. I am sorry if I am being super-skeptical but once I get the con/scam tingle, it's hard to let go. --SVTCobra 03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Museums regularly display a fraction of their collections. That is entirely normal. The rest of what you say about tingles and so on is irrelevant to the discussion. Try to keep to policy rather than continuously casting aspersions on the subject based on personal opinion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know little about museums, but I thought the "permanent collection" was always on display and the rest of the inventory on rotation. Anyway, you are right and I will shut up for the rest of this process unless I am pinged for a response. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article might be informative.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now. The Forbes article is the best, but only mainstream coverage of any length. The best it can do is describe Nooka as "not unknown". A mere mention in the Guardian is not sufficient to push the company over the notability threshold of WP:NCORP. Cool looking watches, all the same! I'm slightly surprised the Matthew Waldman article was deleted. Sionk (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most rely on "announcements", others on interviews failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 9 July 2019 (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.