1129:-- coverage in Finance24 alone is sufficient to establish notability because it supports the article's notability claim, to be the largest IT retailer. Maybe it really needs to be pointed out that the density of financial publications in sub-Saharan Africa is somewhat low. The wording of the article is problematic, though. It reads too much like an advertisement, particularly the "Products" section. The header of the next section, "Social responsibility", could as well read "Publicity stunt". Those two sections should in my opinion be removed but at least changed in their tone. --
391:
websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted; any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.' If you removed the nonreliable, nonindependent sources, there would be no references for the article.
1096:, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." and "For notability purposes, sources must be completely unrelated to each other to be "multiple." All the articles that are considered useful are from the same source, 24.com.
818:
617:, is summararily deleted because of bureaucratic restrictions. I am sure the same holds true for other localities around the world which was given an article and then deleted. I think we would do well to take into cognisance the rule, "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Just because
621:, can stitch a few newspaper cuttings together and write a auto-biography, does not mean that he merits inclusion on Knowledge. I welcome further discussion and hope that this will resolve this issue once and for all, or that at the very least, you propose something else that I can do to make this article worthy of a place here. --
827:
273:- I am not to keen on an article for Incredible Connection, the biggest problem will be content. It is a medium size retailer with limited history, not a major event sponsor and have not done anything notable in its short history. There are far more important South African companies that deserve articles, Cadac
890:
A brief article from 6 years ago that describes the company's holdings and profitability hardly constitutes significant, in depth secondary source. If all of these secondary sources that are out there materialize than I think the company will be notable enough for an article, until then it should be
825:
has a snippet that states "Incredible
Connection, South Africa's leading IT retailer with just about 40% of the local market, has just reported accelerating profit growth in the 15 months to August 2003.' This confirms that the chain is indeed South Africa's leading IT retailer, and holds 40% of the
571:
Things that don't count include: a press release by a business partner of the company; stories apparently based by press releases buy the company; stories revolving around an announcement made by the CEO which provide no apparent journalistic reflection on the story; etc. (b) references on this page
202:
as I am the creator of this article I oppose this motion. I cannot verify that it is the largest IT, retailer or provide any substantive content to the article because none exists on the internet. Nevertheless, it as an extremely popular retailer and holds a significant share of the market in South
787:
policy, "except for the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it." The Dell citation in the article is a Press
Release. All of the articles are brief mentions or
329:
Comment: as the author of the article admits, 'I cannot verify that it is the largest IT, retailer or provide any substantive content to the article because none exists on the internet.' The issue is not how big the company is but is it notable enough that there is the availability of multiple,
857:
I could not find any alternative qualifications in this guideline that state each country's leading retailer in any given area is notable enough to have an article on
Knowledge. The sourcing is poor as the article stands and it is doubtful significant reliable secondary sources will be found.
390:
for the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other
1146:. We have to look at the content of what reliable sources say as well as the number and size of such sources. In this case we have a reliable source that this is (or was) the largest computer retailer in a large country, so it is pretty clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.
814:
788:
company overviews that do not qualify as substantial coverage sufficient for notability. To answer the other question, I don't have any particular expectation for coverage of a South
African electronics retailer but I know that if there is not sufficient coverage than it does not meet
813:- The current sourcing in the article, to be quite blunt, is very poor. The only source I'd say is useful to establish some notability is the Finance24 item. Having said that, this chain of electronics stores appears to be notable. Unavailable for preview, this
854:
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish
386:: 'Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
149:
460:
Dell's announcement is sourced independent of the subject. Techsmart is sourced independent of the subject. Bloomberg is sourced independent of the subject. News24 is sourced independent of the subject. Is there
959:
of the article meets notability, and the poor referencing is an editting concern that is best addressed by tagging the article to note the issue and having it available in mainspace accessible to all editors. --
553:,this source reports that in 2002, Incredible Connection held 45% of the IT retail market in South Africa, surely that is noteworthy? Even a conservative estimate would put IC's market share at US$ 3.5 bln. --
674:. In any case, I hope that the nominator and the deletors will reconsider after the improvements that we have made. I rest my case and leave it to them to decide what the fate of this article should be. --
307:
for this electronics retailer. Nominator, if they are not among the largest brick and mortar electronics retailers in South Africa then who is? It is a bona-fide retail leader in a US$ 7.5 bln market.
601:: The sources that I spoke of have now been incorporated into the article. Finance 24, which is a part of News24 has no affiliation with IC and we must therefore assume that those sources provide
465:
among the Delete voters that this is really is an major electronics retailer in South Africa? How high do you want the bar to be to have a South Africa company get a page in
Knowledge?
609:, bears repeating. I acknowledge that for the most part, Wikipedians are reasonable, sensible, and good natured people, and that I do err sometimes, but it irks me when a company like
334:. Also, notability is not inherited from parent companies like Dell. The company's notability must stand on its own. I don't think there is sufficient notability for this company.
1032:
Can someone analyse the provided sources as their value is key to the outcome. Whpq comments they are not very good but then votes keep so a clear analysis will break the deadlock.
143:
1110:
Reply - It all depends on what you consider significant. The
Finance24 articles all feature Incredible Connections as the primary topic, and are not just mere mentions. --
413:
941:
would be more appropriate rather than deleting it so that, if there is interest and available reliable sources, the article can be improved and moved back in to main space.
1092:
So, based on the above analysis, the current sourcing fails notability. #4, #5, #8 are the only ones considered useful and are somewhat trivial in their coverage. From
436:
110:
635:
I am at a loss to understand the persistence of pushing for deletion when in many cases, the remedy is article improvement and not deletion. To the point that
1068:
Techsmart article - Article is on website of a print magazine but it is unclear if the magazine is a reliable source - unclear if this usfule for ntoability
933:
Developing an article is appropriate if it meets basic notability guidelines. Since it is evident that the sourcing on the article is not adequate to meet
365:
retail leader". I agree with patsw, the article in its current state, does not contain anything substantive as yet but has the potential to be improved. --
876:. There is on item (Finance24) out of the currently messy sourcing that covers this electronics chain. That's one, and I don't doubt there's more. --
83:
78:
909:
I disagree. Deleting the article means is a very poor way to develop a good article. Since additional sources are being requested, tagging it with
87:
70:
830:
lists the company as a "top store". I'd say that's enough to establish notability, and what's needed is more research to find sources. --
308:
164:
131:
528:(1) Dell (2) Techsmart (3) Bloomberg (4) News24. How much coverage do you expect from a retail company of South Africa to have?
1058:
Finance24 - Independent coverage of business unit sell-off - useful for notability (dependent on an editor's interpretation of
17:
679:
626:
558:
493:
370:
255:
212:
848:
Just establishing
Incredible Connection as a 'leading IT retailer' does not qualify the company for an article based on
125:
247:
276:
comes to mind. Not only has it gone global, but it is part of South
African life, from townships to camping to a gas
1155:
1138:
1119:
1105:
1083:
1036:
1023:
987:
969:
950:
928:
904:
885:
867:
839:
801:
774:
714:
683:
656:
630:
581:
562:
537:
518:
497:
474:
451:
428:
400:
374:
343:
320:
289:
259:
238:
216:
193:
52:
636:
74:
605:
of the company. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. Hope this changes things somewhat. I think the question:
121:
1170:
765:
tests with several independently cited facts about in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion.
739:
36:
299:
I just improved the article - connecting it to its corporate parent, and to the fact they are a Dell retailer.
1169:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
675:
622:
554:
550:
489:
366:
251:
208:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
303:
for companies based in South Africa to have a article in
Knowledge? My initial impression is that there's an
1074:
News24 - Independent coverage about a recycling effort from
Incredible Connection - useful for notability --
171:
872:
Why do you believe that reliable sources about a leading electronics chain in South Africa won't be found?
614:
1151:
978:
meets the notability requirements, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. thanks for the interaction.
783:
I didn't respond because because I didn't think it was necessary. As for Dell, I already quoted from the
639:, that is a weak argument for retaining an article. The strongest argument to make is that this article,
577:
514:
546:
1101:
1093:
983:
946:
900:
863:
797:
640:
396:
339:
234:
189:
66:
58:
610:
184:. Only brief mentions in trade magazines without substantive content to develop a complete article.
1059:
913:
618:
157:
137:
1134:
1049:
Bloomberg - This is a directory listing and not a Bloomberg news item - not useful for notability
759:
How much coverage do you expect to find on the Internet for a South African electronics retailer?
738:
when they engage in an arms-length transaction. Dell is a Kevin Bacon-style hub of technologies
250:, which I assume you are referring to, is not a trade magazine and is a credible news source. --
1147:
573:
510:
447:
424:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
734:
because they have a supplier/retailer relationship is ludicrous. Corporations do not become
1097:
1009:
979:
942:
896:
859:
793:
692:
392:
335:
285:
230:
185:
823:
Africa research bulletin: Economic, financial and technical series, Volume 40, Issues 1-12
770:
652:
533:
470:
316:
1115:
1079:
965:
924:
892:
881:
849:
835:
784:
762:
705:
671:
644:
383:
1130:
1055:
Finance24 - Independent coverage of company earnings coverage - useful for notability
789:
222:
181:
382:
Look at the sources referenced in the article and compare it to this guideline from
1033:
1020:
938:
443:
420:
49:
104:
934:
572:
are irrelevant, only references on the page under consideration are considered.
331:
281:
203:
Africa. Does this not justify its inclusion on Knowledge? I mean, if an article
1071:
MyBroadband - Techsmart barely mentioned in article - not useful for notability
873:
766:
648:
529:
485:
466:
358:
312:
1012:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
695:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1111:
1075:
961:
920:
877:
831:
761:
I think the bar was reached a long time ago in establishing that IC met the
792:. Do we have separate notability standards for each country in the world?
974:
Of course, that's the disagreement in a nutshell. I don't agree that the
226:
204:
919:
would be the way to go. If you delete, there is nothing to build on. --
607:
how high do you want to raise the bar for a South African retail company?
361:
has shown, there are in fact sources that purport to show that it is a "
743:
1065:
Dell press release - not a reliable source - not useful for notability
722:
I wish Sandstein gave a reason for the relisting. It is unnecessary.
180:
Company that does not meet the notability requirements according to
1163:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
727:
509:
no genuinely independent third party coverage that I can see.
670:
You are right. There is little to recommend in arguing about
484:: I am also trying to find more sources and have fleshed out
274:
330:
reliable secondary sources to create an article as per
100:
96:
92:
156:
1052:
JD Group - Primary source - not useful for notability
1019:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
702:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
414:list of South Africa-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1173:). No further edits should be made to this page.
613:, a South African company which has billions of
311:. The article needs improvement not deletion.
488:'s contribution somewhat. Props to you, sir. --
569:no genuinely independent third party coverage.
567:A couple of important points here. (a) I said
305:abundance of coverage in South African sources
643:, now contains text and citations to satisfy
437:list of Business-related deletion discussions
229:is notable and Incredible Connection is not.
170:
8:
435:Note: This debate has been included in the
412:Note: This debate has been included in the
207:, can be included, then why not this one? --
1046:- The existing sources in the article are:
874:Not everything is published on the Internet
750:on Dell when it becomes a supplier to Dell.
434:
411:
603:genuinely independent third part coverage
817:doesn't properly show the text from the
545:: More sources for your consideration:
357:: It seems that I stand corrected. As
301:How high do you want to raise the bar
7:
551:Connection group sheds software unit
225:and you will readily understand why
955:Again, I disagree. I believe the
730:and Incredible Connection are not
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
757:answered my repeated question
547:Connection performs incredibly
1:
891:deleted per the guidelines
221:Comment: Please review the
1190:
988:19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
970:18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
951:17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
937:. Perhaps, moving it to
929:16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
905:16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
886:15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
868:14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
840:13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
802:18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
775:13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
740:Six Degrees of Separation
715:19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
684:02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
657:23:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
631:21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
582:20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
563:11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
538:10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
519:08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
498:19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
475:17:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
452:12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
429:12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
401:16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
375:16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
344:13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
321:00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
290:21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
260:20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
246:are only guidelines. The
239:20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
217:20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
194:20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1166:Please do not modify it.
1156:18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1139:22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1120:13:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1106:12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1084:10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1037:05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1024:05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
676:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
623:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
555:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
490:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
367:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
252:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
209:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
53:08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
615:assets under management
599:But wait, there's more!
641:Incredible Connection
67:Incredible Connection
59:Incredible Connection
826:market share. This
819:Google Books search
619:Paul Stephen Farmer
726:To the point that
637:other stuff exists
44:The result was
1026:
717:
713:
454:
440:
431:
417:
1181:
1168:
1018:
1014:
918:
912:
821:. Essentailly,
746:does not become
712:
710:
703:
701:
697:
441:
418:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1171:deletion review
1164:
1007:
916:
910:
706:
704:
690:
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1187:
1185:
1176:
1175:
1159:
1158:
1141:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1040:
1039:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1016:
1015:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
888:
843:
842:
807:
806:
805:
804:
778:
777:
751:
720:
719:
718:
699:
698:
687:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
522:
521:
503:
502:
501:
500:
478:
477:
432:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
349:
348:
347:
346:
324:
323:
293:
292:
280:in Sandton. --
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1186:
1174:
1172:
1167:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1022:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1006:
1005:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
958:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
915:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
889:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
856:
851:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
808:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
782:
781:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
716:
711:
709:
700:
696:
694:
689:
688:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
583:
579:
575:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
456:
455:
453:
449:
445:
438:
433:
430:
426:
422:
415:
410:
409:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
269:
268:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
201:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
183:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1165:
1162:
1148:Phil Bridger
1143:
1126:
1060:WP:CORPDEPTH
1043:
1008:
975:
956:
853:
822:
815:anippet view
810:
758:
755:delete voter
754:
747:
735:
731:
721:
707:
691:
669:
606:
602:
598:
574:Stuartyeates
568:
542:
525:
511:Stuartyeates
506:
481:
462:
457:
387:
379:
362:
354:
304:
300:
296:
277:
270:
248:Sunday Times
243:
199:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1098:Warfieldian
1094:WP:CORDEPTH
980:Warfieldian
943:Warfieldian
897:Warfieldian
860:Warfieldian
855:notability.
794:Warfieldian
732:independent
393:Warfieldian
336:Warfieldian
231:Warfieldian
186:Warfieldian
144:free images
914:refimprove
708:Sandstein
611:Allan Gray
244:Guidelines
748:dependent
736:dependent
444:• Gene93k
421:• Gene93k
363:bona-fide
205:like this
1131:Pgallert
1010:Relisted
693:Relisted
458:Comment.
380:Comment:
309:(report)
111:View log
1044:Comment
1034:Spartaz
1021:Spartaz
976:subject
957:subject
893:WP:CORP
850:WP:CORP
785:WP:CORP
763:WP:CORP
744:Hitachi
672:WP:BIAS
645:WP:CORP
543:Comment
526:Comment
482:Comment
384:WP:CORP
355:Comment
227:Mzoli's
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
790:WP:GNG
507:Delete
388:except
282:NJR_ZA
271:Delete
223:WP:GNG
182:WP:GNG
122:Google
88:delete
939:WP:AI
767:patsw
649:patsw
530:patsw
486:patsw
467:patsw
463:doubt
359:patsw
313:patsw
278:braai
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1152:talk
1144:Keep
1135:talk
1127:Keep
1116:talk
1112:Whpq
1102:talk
1080:talk
1076:Whpq
984:talk
966:talk
962:Whpq
947:talk
935:WP:N
925:talk
921:Whpq
901:talk
882:talk
878:Whpq
864:talk
836:talk
832:Whpq
828:book
811:Keep
798:talk
771:talk
728:Dell
680:talk
653:talk
627:talk
578:talk
559:talk
534:talk
515:talk
494:talk
471:talk
448:talk
425:talk
397:talk
371:talk
340:talk
332:WP:N
317:talk
297:Keep
286:talk
256:talk
235:talk
213:talk
200:Keep
190:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
852:.
753:No
742:.
682:)
629:)
561:)
496:)
373:)
258:)
215:)
172:TWL
109:– (
1154:)
1137:)
1118:)
1104:)
1082:)
986:)
968:)
949:)
927:)
917:}}
911:{{
903:)
895:.
884:)
866:)
838:)
800:)
773:)
655:)
647:.
580:)
549:,
536:)
517:)
473:)
450:)
442:—
439:.
427:)
419:—
416:.
399:)
342:)
319:)
288:)
237:)
192:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1150:(
1133:(
1114:(
1100:(
1078:(
1062:)
982:(
964:(
945:(
923:(
899:(
880:(
862:(
834:(
796:(
769:(
678:(
651:(
625:(
576:(
557:(
532:(
513:(
492:(
469:(
446:(
423:(
395:(
369:(
338:(
315:(
284:(
254:(
233:(
211:(
188:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.