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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Waldman[edit]

Matthew Waldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted and was recreated after deletion. Contributing editor Msurtees10001 is the subject and has a conflict of interest. Article subject isn't notable. 9H48F (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nooka seems like the logical thing to do here. There is new coverage of Waldman (last AfD was 2006), but it seems exclusively about the Nooka watches. See this Core 77 article, this TechCrunch article, this Forbes article, this Designboom article, this FastCompany article, this Wired article (about an Umbrella product by Nooka), this article in The Columbian, this decent book entry on Waldman and Nooka, this NY Daily News profile, an interview in Bare Magazine, this Gizmodo entry and another Core 77 article. In these articles, Waldman is consistently mentioned as the founder/force behind Nooka, however, except for the NY daily News, the coverage is really primarily about Nookafirst and Waldman second. Also, note that COI is not a relevant criteria for deletion. Lots of COI editors have created articles on notable subjects. In those cases, we keep them and make them neutral rather than delete them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentUnderstand about the COI, just bringing it up 9H48F (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and nominate Nooka for deletion. A company that needed $90K to stay afloat from an Indiegogo campaign is truly tiny. They also dare call their products chronographs when what they really sell is plastic pieces like this. Both articles do not mention anything negative about either Waldman (failure of his design studio Berrymatch aka apartment in Chelsea) or Nooka which teetered on extinction ever since 2008. These things are in the sources, but not the articles. Also, this company does not maintain sales offices around the world nor does the source support that (it's actually one which speaks of Nooka as a warning for startups). Both pages stink to high heaven of WP:PROMO and/or WP:VANITY. And to some extent it worked (one sources tells its readers to learn more about Nooka by reading the Wikipedia page). His claim to fame seems to be he designed a single watch for Seiko once upon a time (before Nooka) which is now being presented as "commisioned work" done by Nooka. Neither Waldman nor his company come anywhere close to notable. The Wikipedia articles do not represent the truth in any objective or balanced manner. --SVTCobra (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Merge to me implies that all or even a majority of this content should be migrated to Nooka, but Waldman probably at best deserves a brief section in the article. Per nom, fails to meet notability guidelines. Comments: If Msurtees10001 is indeed who the nominator claims to be, someone should raise the issue on his talk per WP:COICOIN. Also, @SVTCobra: I know literally nothing about Nooka, but it was fun to read through such an impassioned rant. Finally, the external link to PingMag which reads "NOOKA: The Info Aesthetics of A Wrist Watch" brings me to an ad for an ED drug, and thus I've restored it to an archive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I want to make it clear Msurtees10001 is not Matthew Waldman, but rather Michael Surtees another wannabe product designer with a passion for horology ("the study of measurement of time" - which I think he equates with having cool watches). I say this with a lot of certainty because of Talk:Nooka. They are both NYC based and definitely know each other IRL. I was unable to ascertain if Surtees worked for Nooka (or maybe he's a backer), but he has been to the office and has spent a lot of time promoting Nooka designs on social media. There's a remarkable amount of pages that mention both names together. Therefore, I posit it is still WP:COI. Surtees has a whole other vanity website which seems to be dedicated to photos of how awesome his life is, but that's neither here nor there. The point is there is a COI, but it is of second-degree nature, not first degree. I feel these pages have been created to lend credibility to Nooka and Matthew Waldman in whatever fundraising efforts are undertaken. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. And citation source #3 - the link to Parsons long list of adjunct faculty - does not list him but rather a Jeffrey Waldman. This would mean that the sole citation to verify the exhibitions listed in the article is not credible. Maybe merge with Nooka article, but that is weak as well. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.