Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winking (company)


 * 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Winking (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sources beyond business-as-usual PR stuff. Tagged for notability since 2012. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: The coverage provided is unremarkable: routine announcements, presence on a trade trip, etc. Nor are my searches finding better; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (An article on the company CEO, Gerdi Staelens, has also been repeatedly flagged for notability, and edit summaries such as "added his image WITH permission of the owner" indicate a proximity to the subject.) AllyD (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and I am also bundling their product. The sources are just press release, affiliated pages and churnalism. There are no reviews or independent coverage.
 * Domdeparis (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MULTIAFD, bundling AfDs should occur only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion. Since we're already about midway through the 7-day listing period for Winking (company) and several editors have already made comments here related solely to the Winking (company) article, I don't think bundling a new article in at this point is appropriate. Do you think you could start a new AfD for the Print&Share article instead of bundling it into this one? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad thanks for pointing that out. Domdeparis (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Hello. Erm, I have nominated the article mentioned above for deletion: Articles for deletion/Print&Share. We are not at a stage to be able to safely assume anything. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a company that helped shaping the windows administrative software business in Belgium in the beginning years. Including electronic facturation avant la lettre. I can understand that you can't find better search results, but my first hit gives another source: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/gn015djib, http://archief.westhoek.be/ned/jewaserbij/2007/oktober/diksmuide0510/welkom.htm , ... There are also references to Africa print and Microsoft talking about Winking, if you call these non reliable sources... Both not affiliated with this I.S.V. Winking. The deletion of the Print&Share page has been discussed on why it should be kept. JuFo (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is beyond providing the reliable sources for each statement. (I have no comment on whether this has actually happened or not.) The narrative of this article seems like kebob without meat; it delivers basic info that are necessary for every article about a company (analogous to a skewer of a kebob). But nothing beyond that. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The company's long history and their presence at the start of PC computing in Belgium in 1990s seem to offer sufficient significance for the article to be kept. On the other hand, poor outcome of Google test, their website's Alexa rank only at 1.5 million, and apparent shortage of online mentions raise eyebrows when talking about IT business. Mabye someone from the Belgium IT world could share their opinion? — kashmiri  TALK  12:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that the WP:ALEXA ranking is not an indicator of their notability as we are not considering the notability of a website but a company and the website that you are talking about is that of the product print&share and not the company's site which is rated at 12 million. The problem is that the print&share website makes almost no mention of winking just at the very bottom of the page where it says "Winking 2017 . Designed by Winking for Ricoh . Contact us". I looked at their website and I believe that it is only aimed at Dutch speakers as the English and French versions are very very poorly translated (very shoddy machine translations) and for a company that has been around for nearly 20 years with international products I think this is also a reason to raise eyebrows. Domdeparis (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. While the references might appear in reliable source, they are not intellectually independent. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 19:56, 22 November 2017 (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.