Deletion of Nooka

Comment: per nom,  and . Notwithstanding the https://vimeo.com/101344976#t=28s 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 https://forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2014/08/13/trying-to-rebuild-a-company-with-crowdfunding-nooka 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 https://www.europastar.com/news/1004089379-the-story-of-nooka-watches-a-warning-for-other.html 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NCORP)

Comment: I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most rely on "announcements", others on interviews failing  and/or . Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

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 Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#How_to_apply_the_criteria|How to apply the criteria in , 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:OR)