Talk:AppLovin

Neutrality and Close connection?

@FockeWulf FW 190: Hi. Why does it seem to you that a major contributor might have a close connection to the subject? I think you are hinting at @Gamer grifter:.

And which sections made you raise questions about neutrality? I think the line "with additional offices in New York, Berlin, Beijing, San Francisco and Tokyo." can be removed, it sounds promotional. I am hoping we can clean the article up so that it meets Wikipedia's standards. Amin (Talk) 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amin: From contributions it appears that Gamer grifter has been inactive for a couple months then adds some information to the article. From content the page is written in a manner which may give a certain impression. In other words the content is not neutral, but yet is not promotional. I don't want to say it, but there appears to be a slight conflict of interest as most edits after the article was created come from one source. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems a little odd.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@FockeWulf FW 190:

1: "From content the page is written in a manner which may give a certain impression. In other words the content is not neutral, but yet is not promotional."

I disagree and I think he article meets WP:POV standards. Can you quote the lines that you think are the most problematic?

2: "From contributions it appears that Gamer grifter has been inactive for a couple months then adds some information to the article."

That is not enough to add a Close-Connection warning. There are many people who only edit Wikipedia sporadically. I don't think your suspicion has enough grounds to showcase the warning. Template:COI says: "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement."

We have to assume good faith here. I propose removal of both warnings. I will wait to see if you have any counter-arguments, and hope we can reach consensus Amin (Talk) 10:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amin:

Yes we have to assume good faith as mistakes are possible.

Although it is important to make sure certain is not cherry picked and that content is of a neutral point of of view.

The sections which appear off in some sections are the ones which after mentioning where it is headquartered there's the mention of it being planned to be bought for $1.42 billion. It should ether be in one section or the other or the words altered to prevent it from sounding redundant and giving a certain impression.

There also is a section in which it mentions that the name was inspired by a movie which does not appear encyclopedic and appears slightly out of context.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@FockeWulf FW 190:

1 "The sections which appear off in some sections are the ones which after mentioning where it is headquartered there's the mention of it being planned to be bought for $1.42 billion."

It is, in fact, being bought for that amount, which is widely covered by reliable sources. BTW, your lack of punctuation makes it difficult to read your text.

2 "It should ether be in one section or the other or the words altered to prevent it from sounding redundant and giving a certain impression."

You keep using "certain impression" but have yet to specify what you mean. Every word leaves an impression on us, and as long as it is notable and based on reliable sources, it is welcomed on Wikipedia.

3 "There also is a section in which it mentions that the name was inspired by a movie which does not appear encyclopedic and appears slightly out of context."

Etymology is actually very encyclopedic.

I am removing the warnings, due to lack of grounds to justify them.

Amin (Talk) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amin:

The layout of the content is written in a way which only adds a positive note to the company.

The history only adds purchases and very little information on what the company actually does.

There's not much information on what the company actually does or services it provides.

There should also be information which links to related companies and services and links to methods of advertising.

The impression which is provided by the article only points to here's where the company has gained support and here's where it has been bought.

From what is written in the article there is not much content beyond here's what the company bought and where it has been used, when it was founded, and being planned to be bought.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@FockeWulf FW 190:, @Amin:, thank you both for your thoughts and contributions. I agree w/ FockeWulf FW 190 that the entry is sparse in details as of now. Actually, the only interesting (maybe extraneous?) thing I found was about McLovin from SB and why I kept looking lol. If you have any suggestions of how I can be of help here or would like to work together to cut/rework Neutrality issues Ping me. Gamer grifter (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)