Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZO (4th nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WinZO

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Issues from previous AfDs have not been resolved in this recent recreation of the article. Namely, the sources still do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and thus fail to establish notability. Also, the third AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzo was mistakenly closed as "soft delete", as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZO and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZO (2nd nomination) already previously existed. GTrang (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version of the article shows clear evidence of notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Unlike the earlier drafts, it now includes substantial independent coverage from major, reliable news sources such as Reuters, Economic Times, Forbes India, and Inc42. These sources discuss not just funding or product launches, but significant developments like legal disputes with Hike, an antitrust complaint against Google being investigated by the Competition Commission of India, and real-world policy engagement around platform regulations.

The company has also shown measurable financial success. It reported over ₹1,000 crore in revenue in FY 2023–24 and a profit of over ₹300 crore, which is independently reported and verifiable. The platform is expanding internationally, including a $25 million investment to launch in Brazil, again covered by independent sources.

The article now meets notability criteria because it documents more than routine coverage, it includes sustained, in-depth reporting on conflicts, legal challenges, and its role in shaping digital policy. This is a notable player in India's online gaming and digital economy space. Previous concerns about PR-heavy content or lack of depth no longer apply. Recommend retaining the article. Sahi1up (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an WP:LLM rationale. Nathannah • 📮 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Websites, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and India. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable guideline for this page since it is a company would be WP:ORGCRIT. None of the sources fall under that as they are all churnalism, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. LKBT (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Repeated recreations suggest a need to WP:SALT the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all material seems promotional. we are now at afd #4, so salting is necessary Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some press release type articles, but there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. What sources? I can only see press releases, incidental mentions, and quotations. Searched for a bit in Scholar and Proquest. FalconK (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcon Kirtaran I don't see any press releases. Several citations are actually down, so I cannot say if they are press releases, but besides those we have a few that are not press release, such as Financial Express, EconomicTimes, and Inc24. Which do you refer to as a press release? Press release should clearly state that it is a press release and often has company info such as the ABOUT section and contact info on the bottom. Maybe you are mistaking articles that were written based on announcements, but in my opinion an article written based on company announcement as long as not copied word by word is considered a legit coverage. If that was not the case, majority of of wiki articles should be deleted. For example if Apple announced a new OS, should all the articles written about it be considered a press release, hence we should not have such articles used as a citation? I see that I may be in the minority opinion here, but if I am wrong, please point me out the proper Wiki policy regarding what is considered a press release. Darkm777 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases often do not directly state that they are a press release, but they generally present single-source un-analyzed factual information that is ultimately sourced from the company's own announcement. Often times, news outlets will republish press releases verbatim or nearly verbatim; this does not amount to notability.

There are a great, great many Wikipedia articles about companies that should be deleted, because for some reason many people view it as important that their company have a Wikipedia article. This, as decided before so many times, is one of them. It is for this that salt is the right answer.

The Financial Express article you post is a perfect example of a dependent reference published by a media outlet. It does not go to notability because it would need to be an independent source. A dependent source is one that relies primarily on the subject itself as a source for information; that article is mostly literal quotes from the subject. The second article I cannot read. The third, from Inc24, is different; it is a dependent source of WinZo and Hike together, and describes only the lawsuit; the single event does not make for significance. In general there should be many sources about many different topics. That is part of why this article is so commonly deleted. I am amending my !vote to include salt. FalconK (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AND SALT per nom. Not much improvement from its previous versions on mentioned issues if possible, while also repeatedly recreated enough to deserve salting. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt for two reasons. I checked every reference. First, the company might or might not meet WP:GNG if it were not a for-profit company. Since it's for profit, the company has to meet the much higher standards of WP:NCORP; none of the working links do this.

Second, and more worrisome, at least half the links (which are all new) don't work. This tells me this is basically a fraudulent, unreliable article, whatever the notability. We absolutely can't have fake referencing in Wikipedia -- it's almost an existential threat. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment – → Delete and Salt – I am the original author of this article. After reconsideration, I no longer believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I now support deletion and also recommend salting the title to prevent recreation. I also apologize for the poor quality of references; several are not working or fail to meet reliability standards. Thank you. Sahi1up (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2025 (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.