Talk:AppFolio

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the edit request review section below for information on each request.

Y Additional changes made: As none of the awards in the Recognition section were independently notable in Wikipedia, this section was deleted. Regards,  Spintendo  08:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Spintendo: Thanks for reviewing the requests above. I have questions about some of the comments you left:

For item 1, you write that you are “unable to review” because The WikiLink for LiveEasy was not provided with the request.

Do you simply wish me to bracket LiveEasy to indicate someone else might want to develop a Wikipedia page?

Or does this mean you believe Wikipedia policy requires that in order to include a reliably sourced statement on a Wikipedia page about a company being acquired, that the acquired company must have a Wikipedia page? Doesn’t that violate WP:NNC?.

For item 2, you give the same rationale for being “unable to review” because The WikiLink for Realm-X was not provided with the request.

In this case, though, this is a product developed by the company.

Can you clarify if you believe that Wikipedia policy requires that every product created by a company needs to meet Wikipedia notability standards and have a Wikipedia page? That would violate Per WP:NNC.

Or again, did you simply wish me to bracket Realm-X?

For item 3, you declined per WP:NOTPROMO.

The proposed sentence:

As of 2025, the company’s software was used to manage more than 8 million properties.^[1]

I understand that you might think that it is a positive to mention the size of the company's user base, even though this is very neutrally worded.

In fact, 8 million users might be interpreted positive or negative. To give an example in another context, stating the size of the user base of ChatGPT is not promotional just because it’s large. That fact can be viewed in a positive or negative way, depending in what you think of AI.

The size of a software company’s user base is one of the most critical pieces of information about a company. Eg 800 users or 800 million users. Not including this info because it might portray the company in a positive light makes the encyclopedia weaker.

For item 4, you write: This sentence already mentions property management. Since all property can arguably be considered as an "investment", it's not immediately clear why the additional mentioning of investment management needs to be made.

The source is using “investment management” as a distinct client segment. With property management, the software might be used for collecting rent or paying utilities. For investment management, the software provides parsed data with agentic AI to maximize revenue. These are two separate types of clients, using the software for different reasons. Here is the wording again:

AppFolio provides cloud-based property management software for users in residential and commercial property sectors, as well as investment management.^[2]

For item 5, you give the same rationale for being “unable to review” because The WikiLink for Realm-X Performers was not provided with the request.

Again, can you clarify if you believe that Wikipedia policy requires that every product created by a company needs to meet Wikipedia notability standards and have a Wikipedia page? That would violate Per WP:NNC.

Or, did you simply wish me to bracket Realm-X Performers even though it does not have a Wikipedia ?

For item 8, you write: The provided reason makes mention of requested item No. 4, above, which was declined.

Per my response to your decline of item 4, “investment management” as a separate client space served by AppFolio, distinct from multifamily, single-family, commercial, and other property-management sectors. Investment management is one of the company’s primary services, which has been reported by reliable sources.

Thanks Harrison2026 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your questions.

1. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people, businesses, and events. Most newsworthy announcements do not qualify for inclusion, as routine news coverage is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. To allow for inclusion of this news-like information in the article, please establish the notability of the subjects LiveEasy, Realm-X and Realm-X Performers. (See WP:NOTNEWS.)
2. Because the reference for this information comes from Business Insider, that source's text needs to be checked to ensure it is not promotional gibberish written by an LLM. Even though there is an author(s) listed in the article, in the end I cannot access it (it's paywalled). Since I cannot access it, and because you didn't provide the text under the |quote= parameter, I can disregard it as promotional in nature? = unknown and/or inaccessible. (See WP:BUSINESSINSIDER.)
3. The request would have benefitted from having this reason placed into it at that time. As I understand it now, this could be included. As a suggestion however, might I propose that readers may have the same confusion that I was under reading your suggested prose, and that a re-write of it may be neccessary to increase a reader's understanding of these two differences.

I look forward to your next request which hopefully makes use of my suggestions. Regards,  Spintendo  01:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Spintendo:

Thanks for your response. I’ve addressed each of your points:

1. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people, businesses, and events. Most newsworthy announcements do not qualify for inclusion, as routine news coverage is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. To allow for inclusion of this news-like information in the article, please establish the notability of the subjects LiveEasy, Realm-X and Realm-X Performers. (See WP:NOTNEWS.

The key feature of NOTNEWS is WP:Routine “Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable.” On a page about a company, information of major acquisitions and major new products rise well above “run of the mill.” These are not daily occurrences. The equivalent in a page about a person might be a marriage or a new job.

I think more context might make this clearer.

For my first request, here’s a suggestion with more context and text from the paywalled content built into the ref:

In 2024, AppFolio acquired LiveEasy for $80 million, incorporating its moving and household-management services into AppFolio’s expanded platform for renters.^[1]

For my other requests, regarding Realm-X, the source makes clear that these products are part of a big shift in real-estate software toward AI-driven automation. This is a major fork in the road in the history of the company offerings. Here’s a proposed revision that I think makes this clearer: l

In 2024, AppFolio released a suite of AI applications called Realm-X, which eventually included an agentic AI product that makes autonomous decisions and executes real-estate workflows.^[2]

2. Because the reference for this information comes from Business Insider, that source's text needs to be checked to ensure it is not promotional gibberish written by an LLM. Even though there is an author(s) listed in the article, in the end I cannot access it (it's paywalled). Since I cannot access it, and because you didn't provide the text under the |quote= parameter, I can disregard it as promotional in nature? = unknown and/or inaccessible. (See WP:BUSINESSINSIDER.)

I’m sorry that the content wasn’t visible. I didn’t encounter a paywall, so didn’t realize access would be an issue. The article is 3,600 words with two bylines and a heavy focus on investigative journalism. It’s safe to say it’s a reported feature, not AI slop. I’ve built the relevant quote into the ref as you suggested:

As of 2025, the company’s software was used to manage more than 8 million properties.^[3]

3. The request would have benefitted from having this reason placed into it at that time. As I understand it now, this could be included. As a suggestion however, might I propose that readers may have the same confusion that I was under reading your suggested prose, and that a re-write of it may be necessary to increase a reader's understanding of these two differences.

I agree with your point that this sentence could be improved by offering a clearer distinction between the distinct functionalities offered for property management and property investment. Here is a rewrite based entirely on what the source verifies:

AppFolio provides cloud-based software for managing single-family, multi-unit, and commercial properties, and provides tools for property managers to operate and market their business.^[4]

Thanks again. I appreciate your willingness to work on these. Harrison2026 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply