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 draftify. There is a consensus that this article is not notable and given the expressed conflict of interest otherwise needs to go through Articles for Creation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedzai[edit]

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

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

Delete or DraftifyDoes not seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. References seem to be press releases, unreliable sources, paid articles.. The creator of the article is an SPA and some contributors may be connected. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ssfdz it might be good to keep a copy of the article at User:Ssfdz/feedzai. You can a copy the content without the templates and category tags and work on it. The other option is to have it converted into a draft where you can get experienced editors to give you feedback. Which would you prefer? Vikram Vincent 16:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made a copy for you in user subpage. Vikram Vincent 04:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per Vincentvikram. Could not find anything other than some press releases. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Probably suitable for G11. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 15:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending: Re-evaluating the article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete as of right now. Note that corporations are generally evaluated against WP:NCORP only instead of WP:GNG.

    Sieving through sources found from searches with query string Feedzai -wikipedia -globenewswire -bizwire -wire -prnewswire and intitle:Feedzai -wikipedia -globenewswire -bizwire -wire -prnewswire. The first few pages do not look good as it looks like either they fail WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am the editor. I'd like to fully disclose my conflict at this time. (I am an employee of the company). Which sources are problematic? I'd like to resolve any problems as quickly as possible. Please advise on next steps. The updates I made to the page are intended to be neutral. Ssfdz (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Made significant edits to the page in an effort to bring it more in line with encyclopedic standards. Removed several press releases and blog citations. Open to any additional suggestions on how to improve the page to meet WP:GNG. Ssfdz (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have cleaned up most of the press release related data and hyperbole claims from tangential data after looking at each source in depth. Seems the page is now a stub. Vikram Vincent 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The primary problem is that none of the references meet the requirements for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The Forbes article is on the "sites" part of the website and is not considered reliable. The other other references all use fairly standard boiler-plate descriptions copied from the company's website or PR announcements, nothing that passes WP:ORGIND at any rate. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate: As Go Phightins! has said, WP:HEY could apply here, but I think the article would benefit more from being moved to draftspace where Ssfdz and others could get it up to scratch and submit it to Articles for creation for review. Seemplez ^{((ping)) me} 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify to give Ssfdz time to find references that meet both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND - the current references fail and the topic fails NCORP as things stand. Otherwise this topic fails the criteria and should be Deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram Thank you for making a copy. The subject has just made some news today. What's the best approach to make updates at this stage? Should I make them to the subpage and let editors offer suggestions?Ssfdz (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssfdz I'd say go make the edits on the main page. I'll help you clean it up if necessary. Vikram Vincent 16:13, 24 March 2021 (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.