Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppLovin


 * 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 no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

AppLovin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

all the references deal only with financing and their stock price, none give comprehsive coverage. (ecept for promotional interviews as in Business Insider). None of this meets the requirements of WP:NCORP.  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It is still a multi-billion dollar company with some relevance in startups and technology. It might be better to improve the article. It hasn't changed much since it was created in 2016. I do agree with the criticism of the article mostly covering funding rounds, so expand on it as you see fit. Surely there must be new sources in the last 4 years, that cover more than just funding rounds. Amin (Talk) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 07:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is the only place where I could find anything about the rt.applvn.com dns requests that were mysteriously coming from my daughter's new iPad. It's good to know that it's a multi-billion dollar marketing company and partially owned by the Chinese government. 172.103.241.96 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This entry is nearly 2,000 words long. From https://www.library.hbs.edu/Find/Databases/International-Directory-of-Company-Histories, the International Directory of Company Histories contains "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies." The entry's summary notes: "AppLovin Corporation provides a digital software-based service that tracks and collects customer data from smartphones, computers, and other devices for advertisers to help them deliver relevant ads to mobile devices. The company positions itself as a partner that can enable advertisers worldwide to predict what products and services consumers want based on their past shopping activity. It relies on customer data to inform targeted marketing campaigns that appear within advertisement-supported mobile applications including games and shopping apps. AppLovin works with such brands as online digital music provider Spotify Ltd. and retail fashion chain operator Nordstrom, Inc., as well as companies in the travel and hospitality industries including Hotels.com . Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, AppLovin has additional offices in Berlin, London, New York, and San Francisco." The entry notes: "The number of ad requests AppLovin was handling each day had risen to over 30 billion by mid-2015, and its distributed technology infrastructure had grown to more than 1,000 web servers at nine data centers, which kept the average response latency, or the amount of time between when an ad was requested by an app or website and when it was delivered, to an average of five milliseconds. Meanwhile, AppLovin's international sales had expanded to about 30 percent of total revenue as the overseas team secured more clients outside of the United States. With a nod from Forbes, which included AppLovin in its 2015 list of America's Most Promising Companies, the company got wider recognition for how much it had accomplished in its brief history." The entry has sections titled "Better Data for Better Business: 2012–13" (569 words), "Refine to Shine: 2014" (585 words), and "A Solid Foundation: 2015" (479 words).  The book has a section about AppLovin. The book notes: "Contrary to popular intuition, the biggest success of Applovin's rewarded video is to serve the direct response campaigns rather than brand awareness campaigns. ... Supported by its performance, Applovin's performance and profits have been growing rapidly. The company, founded in 2012, has earned more than US$500 million of revenue and US$90 million of net profit in 2016, which is quite outstanding among the third-party advertising companies."  The article notes: "Unlike most advertising technology startups, San Francisco-based AppLovin never raised any traditional venture capital. Instead, it was bootstrapped, profitable by the end of its first month and backed by just $4 million in angel funding. Also unlike most advertising technology startups, AppLovin is now being acquired at a “unicorn” valuation. Fortune has learned that the company has agreed to sell a majority stake to Chinese private equity firm Orient Hontai Capital at an enterprise value of $1.42 billion. The deal was announced to company employees earlier this morning, and is expected to close before year-end." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AppLovin to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * International Directory of Company Histories is not a RS. Accordingto its web page, " Information is sourced from publicly accessible data as well as materials supplied by the companies themselves." Basically, this makes it no more reli0able than a promotional  version of Wikipedia   DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The International Directory of Company Histories is a highly reputable multi-volume major reference work. That "Information is sourced from publicly accessible data as well as materials supplied by the companies themselves" means it is a tertiary source, is unsurprising, and does not make it "no more reli0able than a promotional version of Wikipedia". Where else would reference works source their information from other than from "publicly accessible data" and "materials supplied by the companies themselves"? From Reliable sources, "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Cunard (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given source analysis by Cunard, relisting to see if a consensus can be found.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * comment
 * (1) No, the International Directory of Company Histories, tho widely used, is  a tertiary source but  based on PR statements. That makes it no better for encyclopedic purposes than its underlying data. We probably need a discussion of it at WP:REs.  A collection of advertisements is  not a RS for the things being advertised. It can still be useful for other purposes--advertisements if done right, can give useful information for many purposes, but they are not themselves the independent information that makes them usable for notability.
 * (2)Computational Advertising does not have "asection" on hte company. It has 2 pages.
 * the other items are notices.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.