Talk:Veriff
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Missing History
[edit]Big lawsuit missing, they were sued for collecting biometrics, they settled instead of facing the law. It's known as:
McGowan, et al. v. Veriff, Inc. Case No. 2021L001202 (Cir. Ct. Dupage Cnty.)
Contested deletion
[edit]"This page is not unambiguously promotional, because" the subject has international coverage (I'd say its coverage proves notability already), it is one of the leading tech companies in its homeland, and I tried to avoid any promotional language that might have come from the sources (any improvements would be welcome). Of course, I understand that for some people, nothing relevant can ever come from a small country, but that's not actually a valid reason for speedy deletion. The automatic template says, "This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Well, there is not a single reference to the company's own materials, everything has been taken from sources with editorial control and I'd say they're as neutral as tech journalism gets. So, if someone wants to delete it, I'd like to see actual arguments, not just a template. --Ehitaja (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
For the context: I've noticed that although IT sector is quite relevant for Estonia, its coverage in the English Wikipedia is shabby at best. So, I thought I'd start with one company, see how it goes, then maybe continue with an overview of the field and other companies. Of course, judging the notability of commercial organizations often turns into a mess, but "economy is evil, let's not write about it" is still not a sensible guideline. --Ehitaja (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning the article's merits and non-merits here. --Ehitaja (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
No logo?
[edit]Huh? 209.52.88.76 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Inappropriate for Wikipedia
[edit]This entire page is merely marketing material from the company's web site. 2601:1C1:8400:A450:456C:7146:9A9D:2C39 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)