Talk:Feedzai
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
REMOVE CONSIDERATION FOR DELETION/COI TAG
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello,
I recently made several changes to this page on behalf of my employer, Feedzai. I have recently disclosed this conflict of interest in my profile page. It is my intention to provide fair, neutral tone and point of view to the Feedzai page. I welcome any feedback that will improve the quality of my page while meeting Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Please advise on how I can improve the page - and more importantly, reduce the risk of page deletion.
Thank you for your time! Ssfdz (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: This is the wrong way to contest an deletion. Participate in the discussion instead. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources for draft for review
Hello, for the sake of full transparency, I am submitting this draft for review on behalf of my employer, Feedzai, as I have previously disclosed on my User Page.
I am including below a list of references that I’ve identified and believe meet the requirements for establishing notability according to WP:NCORP, which was the concern in March during the discussion.
New coverage that has been published since the last discussion :
- TechCrunch article
- Público article: Público is a very reputable source and is a major source of media in Portugal
- O Jornal Económico: Another major source of media in Portugal
- Another Público article: Note that this one is not about the funding round
- Observador article
Older coverage that I believe was missed during the previous discussion:
- Venture Beat article from 2014: This is a very reputable source and talks about the company in detail
- Forbes (Portugal) article from 2019: This is not a “sites” article and talks about the company in detail
- Wall Street Journal article from 2015: Wall Street Journal is a very reputable source
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Ssfdz (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
