Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolla


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jolla

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable: less than 100 employees; no product on the market; less than 3 weeks after their first press release; lack of WP:RS: most information about the company is repeated information from press/Twitter releases of the company and CEO interviews Lumialover (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the company was founded few weeks ago, however, it was noted by many important media, see for example International Business Times, Techcrunch, THe Economic Times. @nominator: Do you love Nokia Lumia? It would be an interesting coincidence, since the company was formed by former Nokia employees :D --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I know the Jolla has been founded in 2011, so not 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks is the moment when Nokia's PR1.3 update for Linux MeeGo Harmattan for the Nokia N9 mobile has been released by the team of engineers, and after this they were fired form Nokia and has joined the Jolla company - this fact that almost the whole team which created Nokia N9 has joined the Jolla has initiated common interested in the Jolla all over the world. Because (a) this is famous team of their achievements with Nokia N9 (b) they declared to continue what they have already proved they are best in. So Jolla need to be seen and considered with the Nokia N9 created by exactly the same team in frames of Nokia company, what proves they are not accidental group of employees only. Also Jolla a some time before was functioning under different name of company. It has been renamed to Jolla after famous the "Burning Platform" memo about Symbian by Steven Elop, so Jolla can be interpreted as "life boat" like dinghy for life resque. And used for Nokia Bridge program when atmosphere in Nokia were collapsing. I suppose this is misunderstanding so wanted to explain, however if would be aware then it could be treated as a kind of manipulation. Confirmation: mentioned as source in article official Finnish company register. Ocexyz (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What a load of crap. "released by the team of engineers" - Bzzzt - wrong! Most people who worked on the N9 no longer worked on the project by that stage. Even I, who was basically the guy who turned out the lights for his team, had left by that stage. "almost the whole team which created Nokia N9 has joined the Jolla" - pure unadulterated bollocks. It's so far from the truth it's laughable. Don't think I'm picking on you, plenty that follows is bollocks as well. Fatphil (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The company has currently less than 100 employees but is planning to expand to over 100 employees during this year and is continuously recruiting talented individuals. Will be announcing its first product within a few months, it could enter the market this year. A notable company as it has got wide press coverage, as theres a lot of public interest in it, which would indicate Jolla is a strong competitor in the mobile segment and therefore notable. As said also seems more like something personal as the nickname suggests "Lumia lover" which is a product of Nokia and the company was formed mainly from former Nokia employees who were and are developing a competing product to Lumia. Mayhaymate (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA
 * which would indicate Jolla is a strong competitor Without a product on the market it is certainly not a competitor at all as of today.
 * Please read WP:NTEMP and WP:CRYSTAL and reconsider claims starting with is planning to, Will be announcing or it could enter.
 * Jolla could die just like Meltemi (operating system) without any product ever. That article was also wrongly kept in Articles for deletion/Meltemi (operating system) based on speculation about the future before it was deleted for good in Articles for deletion/Meltemi (operating system) (2nd nomination)
 * Lumialover (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We know that the company exists, we know that it is discussed in reliable secondary sources, so I see no problem regarding notability with the company by some chance dying before any product releases: it still made the news and according to those reliable secondary sources it employed people, planned products, struck deals with other companies etc. If you have a problem with the content or form of the article, perhaps better to discuss that on the article's Talk page? --TuukkaH (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons for the alleged non-notability and thus for the proposed deletion are invalid per Wikipedia policy: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH). The article properly cites this signifant coverage in (reliable) secondary sources, thus it's notable, thus the article should not be deleted. As for most of this information being repeated from the company press releases, tweets and CEO interviews, I'd expect that to be the case for many company articles and I see no problem as long as reliable secondary sources vet this information provided by the company itself. (Self-published information is not denied by Wikipedia policy per se, see e.g. WP:SELFSOURCE.) --TuukkaH (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not much information in the article that can be vetted by secondary sources at all (see also WP:COMPANY).
 * One secondary source had the headline CEO Plans Two Smartphones Already and the next day the CEO tells another secondary source that was a misunderstanding. The CEO can tell whatever he wants about his company and it's plans and noone can vet it.
 * This Forbes article seems to consider the product to be credible. I vote keep, but it's a grab bag. I'm a MeeGo user but the article IS a bit thin and so is authoritative information. It is however legitimate and Nokia has confirmed it's existence as well as the Bridge program that is "sponsoring" the production of this phone when the issue on "gifting" of patents was falsely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imstillhere (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to claim this was a Forbes article. This is a blog post expressing the personal opinion of a contributing writer to Forbes.com (different company with different CEO). (Ewan Spence is btw most famous for his work at his main enterprise All About Windows Phone). Lumialover (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lumialover (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When a reliable secondary source publishes something they vet it. WP:COMPANY doesn't say much anything. A misunderstanding between Tech Crunch and a CEO is no reason to delete an article.--TuukkaH (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMPANY states that some companies fulfilling the notability guidelines are not truly notable. Jolla is an example of overtly or covertly advertising a company due to the lack of information not originating from the company itself.
 * Your claim everything a reliable secondary source publishes would be vetted is clearly wrong. To disprove your claim, just look at this Wall Street Journal article that clearly states that all information in the article is based solely on statements of the CEO of Jolla.
 * Lumialover (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMPANY is not a policy, it's not even a guideline; it's just "alternate criteria" that can be used to establish notability in addition to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG (which the article does pass in flying colours). Anyway, it doesn't provide guidelines to assess the alledged advertising, all it says is "care must be taken." Regarding this WSJ article, I'm sorry but I don't see it stating what all it's based on. --TuukkaH (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMPANY is part of WP:CORP. WP:CORP claims This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow for the whole page including WP:COMPANY.
 * Regarding this WSJ article, I'm sorry but I don't see it stating what all it's based on. Let me educate you how the WSJ quotes sources. It might be confusing since different to wikipedia it is not with refs - it is inline in the text:
 * The first paragraph states that Finnish start-up Jolla Ltd. is in talks with hardware makers and the second paragraph explains that this is based on statements of Jolla's CEO directly quoting one of those statements.
 * The third paragraph says Mr. Hurmola ... said and he said making it clear they are just citing him.
 * Press publications like the WSJ explicitely make it clear for each statement what sources they have for it. By name when possible. When anonymous they are mentioned with phrases like senior defense official the WSJ is proud to have insider information and boldly tells that without revealing the identity of the person they spoke with.
 * Nowhere in the Jolla WSJ article does the WSJ claim to have any sources (named or anonymous) other than the CEO of Jolla.
 * Lumialover (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:CORP, you'll see that WP:COMPANY is subsection 4.2, under section 4 WP:CORP. As to WSJ, they assess reasonability and do fact-checking without writing it explicitly in the article. --TuukkaH (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The number of employees and lack of a product are irrelevant to notability. Whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that this article is too soon, there is just about enough press coverage to satisfy the notability requirements although I'd certainly be happier if the coverage was more in depth. In the future if the company proves to be less important than it currently appears then we can merge some of the content into the MeeGo article. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons for the alleged non-notability and thus for the proposed deletion are invalid per Wikipedia policy: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH).
 * The number of employees is not a criteria (if it would then what exact number of employees? Why 1000? Why 3? Why not 10000 only? Why not 10 only? This would be an absurd.)
 * Jolla as fact has been confirmed by at last 2 independent and reliable sources:
 * - Finnish register, source in law
 * - Nokia, recognisable company
 * - Bridge program by Nokia, as a member of it, and all members were chosen in the selection process so it is additional prove the Jolla is significant in what it does
 * - world widely recognisable engendering team, and former Nokia's employees
 * - open community of developers and users interested in MeeGo and Jolla's work
 * Jolla has made significant and notable achievements:
 * - after only 1 year it has signed contract with distributor in China D.Phone which is strategic partner of China Telecom. In fact in China reality that mean there was established indirectly the kind of agreement with the biggest telecom and mobile operator in whole this planet. Such a contract is signed only with companies like Nokia, Sony Ericsson and similar reliable and recognised companies.
 * - that means the Jolla due to what has proposed to Chinese partners, what in fact was Jolla's technology and smartphone, is recognised and treated on the same terms and conditions as the biggest companies on the mobile market. Even if Jolla would not have any own product (what is very improbable) then with this contract must be treated as serious trade company able to sell in China market, and only a few companies can import to China in fact.
 * - Also this is the only European start-up with such agreement with such partners from such a market
 * - - what in total, all above, make it notable.
 * Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is to be neutral about technologies, so can't deny any technology it exists - with removing Jolla article that would be the case.
 * Rules of Wikipedia are to prevent legitimate content against devastation and censorship. Jolla is legitimate and proved fact. Removing it would be against the fact it exist and it is significant on the market and significant for open software community which is worldwide community of big number customers.
 * Rules of Wikipedia are to prevent against actions in bed will. Attempt to remove important for interested in persons article would disallow to work with an article, would disallow to notify next facts like launch of Jolla smartphone in nearest future, would disallow to notify facts about technology created by Jolla. In shortcut: remove of this article would be equal to censorship preventing significant part of wikipedia users community to get knowledge about prooved and legitimate facts about Jolla. This would be not a Wikipedian care for quality of articles, this would be an attempt of discrimination of a significant part of wikipedia community interested in: open source, Linux, MeeGo, Jolla company, technology created by Jolla, user interface created by Jolla, new smartphones, significant companies in mobile market, significant non-chinesee companies at China market. Also that would delete a part of picture of following categories: Companies of Finland, Electronics companies of Finland, Finnish brands, Mobile phone manufacturers, Telecommunications equipment vendors, Mobile phone companies of Finland.
 * I think reason of this discussion can be motivated by one's POV and preferences in technology which caused attempt towards to deletion of certain technology (so Linux MeeGo and Jolla's created technology in IT and mobiles) from Wikipedia. Hence to remove the Jolla article is against rules which are to create Wikipedia as objective and neutral source of encyclopaedic knowledge, so would be against encyclopaedic approach to share with knowleadge, so against Wikipedia as encyclopaedia finally.
 * I add this because seems to me that I have observed with some articles efforts to enforce Microsoft technology-centric POV, which exclude non-Microsoft technology to have values or use ability, what in consequence lead to attempts to delete legitimate and proved facts and knowledge. Ocexyz (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep If things like CrunchBang Linux and BeleniX are notable, then this definitely is. --ilaiho (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Jolla is an important part of the MeeGo saga that started with Nokia's venerable Maemo distribution. My blog post can probably help to set this in context. It is also remarkable for a new Finnish company receiving unprecedented international coverage in a short time --bergie 14:22, 2 Aug 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The distribution deal with China D.Phone (which is strategic partner of China Telecom) should be enough to show this isn't fake news. Also, as noted by few above the company register of Finland has valid registrations regarding this company. Nmshenoy (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As the carousel of alternative mobile operating systems is spinning faster every day (MeeGo, B2G, Nemo, Firefox OS, Gnome OS, Tizen, ...) it is important, that all players are represented at Wikipedia and none is omitted. Even more, as Jolla intends to continue the MeeGo story and is referenced in the MeeGo atricle as well.--Manankanchu (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing that this is being taken seriously given that the deletion is proposed by someone posting under the name "lumialover". It strikes me more as astroturfing and corporate manipulation of the Wiki by Microsoft rather than any valid justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.201.242.130 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Motion to delete is from a single person with obvious agenda, and I believe there is merit for retaining the article (no new pro arguments beyond those already presented). That said, my support will be re-evaluated if no product appears by 31 December 2012.  I would also like to see more details about the company and its plans released in interviews. --Texrat (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient notability stablished to warant an article. Also, plenty of sources are available covering the topic. No reason why it fails the notability guidelines (and likely do not exist). — Hahc 21  05:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur that the motion to delete is from an individual with an obvious agenda. The article will serve as a valuable landing point for those wanting to research the company and its future products. MrJRT (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2012 (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.