Talk:RapLeaf/Archives/2015

Requested move 20 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

TowerData → RapLeaf – Per the above, it appears that the earlier move was incorrect and that these are in fact two separate companies, one that bought the other. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Wikidemon (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be named Rapleaf, not TowerData

Note: I work at TowerData. This article is about the company Rapleaf, which which acquired by TowerData in 2013. The contents of the article discuss the history and controversy of Rapleaf, which is a distinct company from TowerData. The last edit to this article was to move it from Rapleaf to TowerData, and the reason given was "Company renamed". However, that is incorrect, the company was not renamed, it was acquired by TowerData that was founded in 2001 by Tom Burke. TowerData does not have its own Wikipedia article, but it has its own history, it is an older and larger company than Rapleaf, and it has different services than Rapleaf. Because this article was moved from Rapleaf to TowerData, readers of the article will think that TowerData was founded in 2006 by Auren Hoffman and simply renamed itself, which is inaccurate.

Can someone please assist with the following edits:

• Move this article back to Rapleaf from TowerData, or undo the previous move.
• For better readability, move the last paragraph of the "Controversy and backlash" section that says "In 2012, Rapleaf began selling segmented data tied to email addresses for marketers to personalize email communications. Around September 2012 the company moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Chicago, and Phil Davis became chief executive, replacing Hoffman." to the end of the Company section, because it is information about the company and not about any controversy.
• Add a paragraph to the end of the Company section that says something to the effect of "In 2013, Rapleaf was acquired by TowerData." Here are a couple of options for articles to cite regarding the acquisition here and here.

Thank you. Towerdata (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No conflict of interest

Hi. I didn't start this article but I'm the one who wrote most of the material. The Template:COI2 tag seems unfair. I'm not the one accused of a conflict of interest, right? I certainly don't have any relation to the company beyond being a Silicon Valley type who is acquainted with lots of people. But I have no point to prove, I'm just a follower of new tech companies and I thought this one is interesting and ought to have a real article rather than a stub. I researched things, found citations, made it into a factual little mini-article.

As far as I can tell the tag is on because of contributions by User:Manish.shah who, by his name, we can assume to be one of the founders. You can see all his contributions here. As far as I can tell all he did is correct factual errors in my edits regarding dates and funding sources and amounts.

Can't a company owner make simple factual corrections? If not, what do we need to do to get this tag removed and the article properly vetted? We can't have the article forever branded with a claim of POV violation can we? That would be ugly (graphically) and a little bit overkill.

I'm willing to endorse the edits and remove the tag if someone can send me citations to the new facts. I won't endorse them as my work without knowing they're true though. . . Sound good? Pls. forgive if I'm doing this the wrong way, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Thx. Wikidemo 00:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

it looks like this all got resolved on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I can see why the concern. Both founders have been at work on the article but it looks like their contributions were merely clerical and not POV related, so the conflict of interest tag is removed. Whew! Wikidemo 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a COI tag which seems to have been added after the discussion mentioned above. Since no comment was added here on the talk page to justify the addition of the tag despite the previous discussion, I'll remove the tag. If someone decides to re-add it, they're invited to share their rationale here so we can discuss the issue. --Waldir ^talk 00:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)