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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Company that does not meet the notability requirements according to WP:GNG. Only brief mentions in trade magazines without substantive content to develop a complete article. Warfieldian (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 Africa. Does this not justify its inclusion on Wikipedia? I mean, if an article like this, can be included, then why not this one? --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please review the WP:GNG and you will readily understand why Mzoli's is notable and Incredible Connection is not. Warfieldian (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are only guidelines. The Sunday Times, which I assume you are referring to, is not a trade magazine and is a credible news source. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 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 [1] comes to mind. Not only has it gone global, but it is part of South African life, from townships to camping to a gas braai in Sandton. --NJR_ZA (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just improved the article - connecting it to its corporate parent, and to the fact they are a Dell retailer. How high do you want to raise the bar for companies based in South Africa to have a article in Wikipedia? My initial impression is that there's an abundance of coverage in South African sources 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.(report). The article needs improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, reliable secondary sources to create an article as per WP:N. 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. Warfieldian (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that I stand corrected. As patsw has shown, there are in fact sources that purport to show that it is a "bona-fide 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. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at the sources referenced in the article and compare it to this guideline from WP:CORP: '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[3] 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; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted;[4] 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. Warfieldian (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 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 doubt 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 Wikipedia? patsw (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also trying to find more sources and have fleshed out patsw's contribution somewhat. Props to you, sir. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no genuinely independent third party coverage that I can see. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Dell (2) Techsmart (3) Bloomberg (4) News24. How much coverage do you expect from a retail company of South Africa to have? patsw (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More sources for your consideration: Connection performs incredibly, Connection group sheds software unit ,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. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of important points here. (a) I said no genuinely independent third party coverage. 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 are irrelevant, only references on the page under consideration are considered. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more!: 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 genuinely independent third part coverage of the company. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. Hope this changes things somewhat. I think the question: how high do you want to raise the bar for a South African retail company?, 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 Allan Gray, a South African company which has billions of assets under management, 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 Paul Stephen Farmer, can stitch a few newspaper cuttings together and write a auto-biography, does not mean that he merits inclusion on Wikipedia. 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. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 other stuff exists, that is a weak argument for retaining an article. The strongest argument to make is that this article, Incredible Connection, now contains text and citations to satisfy WP:CORP. patsw (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There is little to recommend in arguing about WP:BIAS. 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. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I wish Sandstein gave a reason for the relisting. It is unnecessary.

• To the point that Dell and Incredible Connection are not independent because they have a supplier/retailer relationship is ludicrous. Corporations do not become dependent when they engage in an arms-length transaction. Dell is a Kevin Bacon-style hub of technologies Six Degrees of Separation. Hitachi does not become dependent on Dell when it becomes a supplier to Dell.
• No delete voter answered my repeated question How much coverage do you expect to find on the Internet for a South African electronics retailer? I think the bar was reached a long time ago in establishing that IC met the WP:CORP tests with several independently cited facts about in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond because because I didn't think it was necessary. As for Dell, I already quoted from the WP:CORP 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 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 WP:GNG. Do we have separate notability standards for each country in the world? Warfieldian (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 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 anippet view doesn't properly show the text from the Google Books search. Essentailly, Africa research bulletin: Economic, financial and technical series, Volume 40, Issues 1-12 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 market share. This book 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. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just establishing Incredible Connection as a 'leading IT retailer' does not qualify the company for an article based on WP:CORP. 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 notability. 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 Wikipedia. The sourcing is poor as the article stands and it is doubtful significant reliable secondary sources will be found. Warfieldian (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that reliable sources about a leading electronics chain in South Africa won't be found? Not everything is published on the Internet. 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. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 deleted per the guidelines WP:CORP. Warfieldian (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ((refimprove)) would be the way to go. If you delete, there is nothing to build on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:N. Perhaps, moving it to WP:AI 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. Warfieldian (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. I believe the subject 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. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's the disagreement in a nutshell. I don't agree that the subject meets the notability requirements, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. thanks for the interaction. Warfieldian (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The existing sources in the article are:
  1. Bloomberg - This is a directory listing and not a Bloomberg news item - not useful for notability
  2. JD Group - Primary source - not useful for notability
  3. Finance24 - Independent coverage of company earnings coverage - useful for notability
  4. Finance24 - Independent coverage of business unit sell-off - useful for notability (dependent on an editor's interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH)
  5. Dell press release - not a reliable source - not useful for notability
  6. 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
  7. MyBroadband - Techsmart barely mentioned in article - not useful for notability
  8. News24 - Independent coverage about a recycling effort from Incredible Connection - useful for notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 WP:CORDEPTH, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] 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. Warfieldian (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- 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. --Pgallert (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (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.