Talk:Tapulous

RfC: Appropriateness of section about Decrem's comments on work experience?

Does anyone besides the content creator believe this belongs? In my opinion, it is not anything significant that would be worthy of including in an encyclopedia, unless the implication that Decrem is breaking U.S. labor laws as the author claims. Even if this is the case, isn't that adding some POV or original research to it? Don't we need sources to illustrate that a controversy has been caused that is major enough to be seen as encyclopedic for an article about Tapulous? We're talking about a Iiving person here, and I am concerned that there could be some problems if we do not sort this out soon. I have been having a discussion with the author on my talk page, and he seems pretty adamant about creating a controversy about Decrem through Wikipedia. -Brian Reading (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia's policies on deletion of content, the added section meets the criteria to stay live until consensus is reached for its deletion. The additional section is mostly a transcript of the CEO's own words from an interview given while talking in behalf of the company. The additional section doesn't include any opinions of any sort about any controversy. As the content is factual, the relevancy of it—or lack of in the eyes of just one editor alone— doesn't merit its deletion according to the policies. The guidelines for deletion are very clear and any editor is welcome to cite the specific policy that allows the deletion and then build a case on this talk page to reach consensus before making a deletion—that's the recommended "safe approach" to prevent factual and relevant information from being censored on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.130.55 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How is that a notable comment? You're sourcing it to a primary source - find a secondary source showing why it's notable that he said it. Someone thinks work experience is good? Shocking. Ravensfire (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. And read WIKIPEDIA:BURDEN. The source might be alright... if the issue were notable. That's what you have to prove. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Burden conditions have been met as the primary source is provided and it meets Wikipedia policy for publication - please explain in detail why it isn't in order to refute it. On the issue of the notability of the comments, how could a speech given by CEO of the company in which he makes a statement that indicates he's either not fully aware of labor law (be careful to notice that he mentions specifically the age of the candidates, so this hasn't been about a requirement for years of experience) or he's not willing to abide by them cannot be deemed notable? Is that something most CEOs do on a regular basis? Would any of you invest in a company that is run by a CEO who makes such comments? The deletion policy clearly states that content that is factual and has a source should not be deleted without consensus being reached on the talk page first. Regarding biographical data of living persons—which is really not the case here as this is a profile of the company—the additional section clearly doesn't conflict with it: "requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject" and a reliable source that supports the statement has been provided; a secondary source commenting on the primary isn't necessary. The claim of "original research" evidently doesn't apply either, as the original source has been provided and no opinions have been added to display any bias about the CEO's statement. Notice that the source is the actual CEO, and not even an opinion of his speech voiced by a third party. I think the real case here is not about whether the content should be delete—because it's clearly notable and relevant—so this is really about improvement of the article, and any editor is welcome to improve on that section to make the information more to his or her liking. And Brian, I am still waiting for you to apologize for calling me a troll, an action that's clearly uncivil and against policy. 98.195.130.55 (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source discussing his disregard for labor law, then it's relevant. Otherwise, it's just a factoid. Your assertion it's relevant re labor law is wp:original research. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, no one here is claiming that the CEO is infringing the law. The relevance of his statement is that, according to his words, he's predisposed to discriminate against candidates based on their young age, which seems contradictory to the fact that the company owes its success to a number of young talents who helped develop its best-selling applications.98.195.130.55 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, it sounds pretty bad. If you could get a newspaper to write a piece on it, I think we could put it in. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon: However, that's your insight, which is "original research". You're either asserting that there is/was a controversy involved with his comments, and if this is the case, you must specifically document that controversy with reliable sources. Otherwise, as we have pointed out, it's not really significant or appropriate for the purpose of an encyclopedia. Also, I should note that WP:BLP applies all over Wikipedia, not just in articles dedicated to living persons. You should also understand that me saying that you appeared to be a "troll" in our previous dialog was not an insult. I was simply letting you know that I was observing the phenomenon described here. I did not mean it in a literal nor pejorative sense. I apologize if it was misconstrued. Brian Reading (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal. Sounds like a disgruntled applicant added it to the article. Not encyclopedic without good secondary sources indicating importance. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not a disgruntled applicant by any means. Just a fellow who listened attentively and enthusiastically to Bart's talk and got shocked that he would state that he doesn't want to even consider applicants who are too young in his view to contribute to a company that was initially built on the work of young and creative developers. As a potential investor, I find that bit of information quite disturbing for all the reasons cited above. In time, perhaps Disney's hiring practices will dictate Tapulous' hiring procedures more than the whims of their current CEO. Just sayin'.98.195.130.55 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Lee

I noticed that the History section of the article completely avoided any mention that Mike Lee, a co-founder, left the company due to a difference of vision of what their apps should be like, and that something like four other team members followed suit thereafter. It's as if any facts that could be interpreted as negative were intentionally avoided. Mike Lee's skills and work were instrumental in the initial success of the company. I wonder if you guys have any comments on adding these bits of info to page. Thanks. 98.195.130.55 (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a good source for that information, it can get added pretty easily. Ravensfire (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this information should definitely be included, we just need sources. Brian Reading (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely several mentions on web-sites as TechCrunch. I haven't gotten the time to write down a decent addition to the current material yet, but will try to introduce a draft soon for peer review. Thanks. 98.195.130.55 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)