Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Nokia

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 speedy keep. This is going WP:SNOW and the debate is unnecessarily bad tempered. The Keep votes to date correctly note that the article is well sourced, and while this was a short lived project it may well have been the first iteration of a mobile phone maker's app store, hence its inclusion in several books on the business of mobile telecomms. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Club Nokia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Club Nokia (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)

A Nokia promotional program that closed in 2004. The program previously offered special offers to loyal customers/members. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

See Loyalty program which defines Club Nokia. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: after reading the cited sources, I’m adding that this article fails GNG despite the number of cited sources which are misleading because they focus on Nokia the company or the web portal technology, and give only passing mention to Club Nokia, the loyalty programme itself. Notability is not inherited. Passing mention is not substantial enough to meet notability standards, and only a few of the cited sources qualify as independent secondary RS wherein there is passing mention, others include blogs, books about internet technology, articles about the competition between mobile carriers, etc. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the above comment, Only a few of the cited sources qualify as indepedent secondary RS - this is patently incorrect, sources are from The Register, The Economist, BBC News, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, ZDNet and several books published by reputable publishers such as Wiley. Sure there is a blog by Insead knowledge but this is a reliable source as it is written by a reputable expert. Some primary sources are present but this is ok as they merely provide some supporting information and the article does not rely on these solely (they are also mostly archived versions of the original sources since they no longer exist, including the original EMI press realease). For notability purposes, the subject does not have to be the main focus of the source. However, I agree some sources don't have a great depth of coverage, but there are references provided where Club Nokia is clearly the main focus (on just two pages of the book authored by Wallin I count over 20 mentions of the term "Club Nokia"), the Wall Street reference has "Club Nokia" in its title, multiple references and discussion of "Club Nokia" on at least three pages of the book authored by Doz, and all sources discuss contract/consumer/economic issues in the context of the Club Nokia enterprise. Overall, there are a large number of demonstrably reliable sources supporting the information provided in this article. In all cases at AfD the state of the sources in an article is irrelevant, as it's the availability of reliable sources that matters - in this case numberous reliable sources are already provided in the article, and many more are available clearly satisfying notability of this service formally used by millions of people.Polyamorph (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And, what's your justification of nominating this for deletion? --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTPROMOTION ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not see how this is 'promotion'. Club Nokia was both a loyalty programme AND software portal that closed c. 2004. This is nothing about promotion. Not to mention it is notable because of the deal with EMI (a then-huge record label) and the resulting unease with mobile carriers. --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I fail to see any logical rationale for deletion, article has a number of sources, looks like it passes WP:GNG to me. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Customer loyalty rewards are pure promotion - the article even states "...provided special offers as well as paid-for ringtones, ...." The promotion ran its course and now it's no longer available - that's how promotions work. The article also states For the venue formerly known as Club Nokia, see The Novo by Microsoft. I'm not sure what the latter is about. So far, the arguments to keep are not convincing. I checked the cited sources - the 1st barely has a full paragraph about the Club Nokia promo, the second is its own archived website, the 3rd is a paragraph or 2 in an entire book. Govvy, as a reviewer, what RS convinced you it passes GNG? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thing is, the customer loyalty is just one part of it - Club Nokia was also a media portal for e.g. downloads. Now that part surely can't be about promotion. --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG, was more than just a loyalty programme, the EMI deal is covered by a guardian article cited in the article. There are reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• The EMI deal was signed with Nokia, not Club Nokia. The first sentence of the lead describes what Club Nokia was, so anything beyond that conflates Nokia the company with Club Nokia, a loyalty programme. If anything, it might be worthy of brief mention in the Nokia article because it clearly fails GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Club Nokia was the website by which said media was purchased, and it all caused a bit of a stir back in the day as other cellphone operators complained they were threatening their market, forcing them to cease sales. It does not clearly fail GNG, there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss "club Nokia" as a notable entity. This article is not well written, but that does not make it a candidate for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Provide the link to the RS, please. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty already linked, read them. Polyamorph (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally (via search engine): Club Nokia Spawned a new industry for the provision of mobile content , Wall street article on Club Nokia, BBC article discussing the "new" features available via Club Nokia. RS are there, if you look. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think it's pretty significant in the history of mobile-internet consumer purchasing, could do with a much nicer article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• No need to get snarky - I've read the sources, and this cited source states: EMI Music Publishing and Nokia, the world's leading mobile telephone manufacturer, have signed an agreement for EMI Music Publishing's catalogue to be used for custom downloadable ring tones. And this one states, (my bold for emphasis): They also worry that with Club Nokia, its loyalty programme, Nokia is encroaching on the operators' own turf, just as Microsoft was wont to do. It's about Nokia, not Club Nokia which is nothing more than a conduit programme instituted by Nokia to promote their business. There are no independent RS that warrant Club Nokia being an independent article as it is a loyalty programme, and no matter how much we want RS to support it as a standalone, it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. I've presented my argument - done here. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You've provided no valid justification for deletion, the NOTPROMOTION argument does not hold - this article isn't promoting anything - the website doesn't even exist anymore. Actually Tesco Clubcard is a loyalty programme, would you suggest we delete that page? But in any case, far more than a loyalty programme (which NOTPROMOTION doesn't cover anyway), this is a website that helped pioneer mobile internet consumer purchasing, something which is taken for granted now. When you ask for sources and people (me in this case) take the time to provide them here (above), then please have the courtesy to read them.. Polyamorph (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Loyalty program defines Club Nokia and probably the Tesco Clubcard but I'm not going to spend any more time arguing this case based on the unconvincing arguments that have been put forth. The Tesco Clubcard article has OR and DUE issues which needs to be cleaned-up but that has nothing to do with this AfD. What I do know is that neither passing mention nor a paragraph in a book or article satisfy GNG. The WSJ article you cited above clearly states (again, my bold underline): Eager to capitalize on its growing share of the mobile-handset market, Nokia Corp. is seeking to boost the profile of Club Nokia, its collection of services for those who own its phones. But the effort could put the company at odds with the sector's biggest operators. Notability is not inherited, and for an article to meet the basic standards for inclusion requires multiple independent RS with substantial mention and I have not seen that yet. Whoever closes this AfD will be the one to determine consensus based on how convincing the arguments are in support of our PAGs. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So what you're saying is wikipedia should not have articles on Loyalty programs? Where is the policy justification for that? There are plenty of non-trivial mentions of Club Nokia in the sources, it satisfies WP:GNG since "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". You don't like the article, which is fine, and it could do with expansion / cleanup. But that's no justification for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment No valid policy based rationale for deletion has been provided by the nominator. WP:NOTPROMOTION does not apply, this article isn't promotional, we don't delete articles on promotional products on the basis of WP:NOTPROMOTION, the nominator appears confused in this regard. Many reliable sources that discuss this website / scheme (including some with "Club Nokia" specifically mentioned in their titles, countering arguments made here that the sources give trivial mentions only) are provided in the article, further sources have been provided in this AfD which demonstrate sufficient independent notability from the parent company. Polyamorph (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article to include some of the sources found during this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable and doesn't seem to be a promotional article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2018 (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.