User talk:89.153.64.16

Welcome to the talk page of this ephemeral Portuguese IP-user.

thankyou

I started going through those articles last night, trying to see if there was a pattern, and if anything could be saved, but it got late here, and my head hurt trying to work out what they were trying to do!Curdle (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

:) Very strange pattern indeed. I only made it back a few days. --89.153.64.16 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Openion-based removal

Dear,

Thank you for your contribution in Dhammin.

I've looked into your concern, searched for other platforms giving the same service and found no references citing their existence.

Since the only notability-basis for the subject is being the first of "its kind" to apply distributed systems methodologies, which is cited by independent sources, I encourage you to look for and mention other sources proving otherwise because, if there is any, then the article should be deleted based on misleading and contradicting facts.

I'd suggest that you undo your last edit to the article, look for those sources, and once found you can propose the article for deletion.

Sincerely, --Aaehasa (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Aaehasa, I did read those sources before editing. The sources weren't independant, they were press releases. The text It operates to achieve the best political outcome – winning an election – with the least use of resources, such as time, effort and financing applies to all marketing management platforms and is promotional. Their use of "distributed systems methodologies" is about as notable as all those startups that "use artificial intelligence" – that is, it doesn't quite mean anything. It's also just the company that claims they use those methodologies but it's not elaborated on. There are just so many companies that claim to be the "first" to do something that it's usually safer to not include it.

I think I was only helping the article become more neutral and less promotional. I'm not going to suggest the article should be deleted. All companies use marketing speech, that doesn't mean they're being dishonest or don't deserve an article here, just means we should reflect what fully independent sources say.

Best, --89.153.64.16 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear 89.153.64.16,

I am totally aware of your good faith in editing the article. And you're right, the text It operates to achieve the best political outcome – winning an election – with the least use of resources, such as time, effort and financing looks promotional. Looking back at the sources, you are right about the dependence of source (3), which looks like a press release. However, source (1) is a very long interview with the subject's founder and some testimonials, and source (2) is a report, which both seem independent to me.

With regards to "distributed systems' methodologies", which is very essential here as it is the only basis for notability, I've taken a look at the subject's website (translated to English using Google Translate) to find a clear evidence of implementation for distributed-systems' methodologies. The first screenshot's caption was "Communicate directly between apps within the campaign databases and can not be viewed by third parties. Using an API that is uploaded to the campaign server.", the native explanation is "Client-side apps communicate directly with the campaign database using an application-programming-interface that is uploaded to campaign servers". This gives a very clear view and straight answer on how distributed-systems methodologies are implemented, by which the company does not control a central database for all campaigns but every campaign has its own accessed by the same client-side apps.

Now, are or are not they the first? This takes us back to the beginning of this thread, sources.

Bottom line, we both agree on the removal of It operates to achieve the best political outcome – winning an election – with the least use of resources, such as time, effort and financing, however, there might be a disagreement on the removing It is the first of it's kind to apply distribution-systems' methodologies because if this was not present, I would definitely suggest this article for deletion because it lacks notability. Nice argument.

Sincerely, --Aaehasa (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)