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, though article needs improvement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Edge Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Rrticle fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Leading Edge Group‎. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm trying to make sense of your criteria here, I just wanted to expand on the electronics group entry which is part of a larger being. As for the SPA account, yes it is a new account but I have edited a number of pages previously.Yogorilla (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes you have edited, under Leading edge group (talk · contribs)--Hu12 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to say I have edited before I opened this account, not trying to jerk you around, just trying to make a useful contributionYogorilla (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have added some references to the formation of Leading Edge Electronics and the circumstances surrounding that, I have numerous other references for the Leading Edge Group page which I will add shortly, I hope this goes some way to satisfying your corporate notability requirements.Yogorilla (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has an established basis for inclusion. Any article must pass the notability guideline. Remember the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the company notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, you've probably already seen the references added, now I just have to re-read the guidelines as to primary and secondary sources and see where that leaves me. :) I am somewhat confused by the apparent acceptance of articles such as Jaycar and Redback Audio which do not seem to offer a higher level of established notability (please correct me if I am wrong) Thanks. Yogorilla (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be, however WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on this particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, I was not trying to use those sites as sole jsutification, just trying to find out where the 'line' is that marks notability. I have referenced articles in major newspapers and established industry journals about signifigcant events in the market landscapes and the role of the company. From my reading of the definition these constitute more than trivial or incidental coverage. Is this correct? This whole process started when I found the Leading Edge Electronics page and, as requested by the tags therein, tried to expand it and include information on the parentLeading Edge Group in a factual manner.211.30.87.196 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly, Leading Edge Group. Merge Leading Edge Electronics with it. This would appear to be either an umbrella group or franchise of retail stores that deal directly with consumers. Both articles appear to contain independent references that establish that this is not merely a local chain, and that actually verify some of the claims made in the articles. As such it would appear to meet the business notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Leading Edge Group, merge Leading Edge Electronics there. No call for two articles here. The brand name seems half retail-level (stores actually called Leading Edge) and half wholesale-distributor level (independent stores with their own names), altogether 1300 locations. Seems to have significant presence across Australia and lately in New Zealand as well, so this isn't WP:LOCAL. Needs sources, surely, but searching indicates that WP:CORP should not be a problem. (By the way, no relation to Leading Edge (company), the onetime PC maker.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Edge Electronics content moved into Leading Edge Group as suggestedYogorilla (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stamp a redirect to Leading Edge Group, and remove Leading Edge Electronics from this discussion. This way the focus is singular.--Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but this needs a lot of work. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 13 March 2008 (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.