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 Delete. Yanksox 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelet.biz[edit]

This is a private company (i.e. no stated market capitalisation). This article shows no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Created by single purpose account Leehongfay (talk · contribs); note that the company founder is listed as Vincent Lee Hong Fay. Other contributions include speedy deleted Vincent Lee Hong Fay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Try to improve the article I notice some changes in the articles too, from some good faith anonymous editors. I think KickahaOta is being fair. I could see some sockpuppets and meatpuppets too. Overall, lets move forward, and see if the articles could be improved. If the consensus feel that the article is completely worthless, then remove it, otherwise, keeping the article could be a good source of reference for general audience. Annietan 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
    • Comment While I respect that, your arguement is weak in the face of the matter that Wikipedia does not keep articles based on if they are interesting or not. Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus So if you believe it should be kept, please provide a reason that these pillars of the wiki community should be put asside for this one article.--Brian (How am I doing?) 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give us some credit, we're not stupid. The sockpuppets are yours, as evidenced by the spree of AfD nominations of competing products that this account, associated IP addresses, and single-purpose accounts associated with those IPs addresses engaged in. (Just one example: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) You made a mess that was not pleasant to clean up. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily agree that these are all socks, but I do agree that Annietan's noble-sounding "agreement" rings profoundly hollow under the circumstances. Don't agree or disagree with me. Fix the article, quickly. Kickaha Ota 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.prchecker.info/check_page_rank.php

  • Result
Wavelet.biz returns 5, 
SQL_Ledger (http://www.sql-ledger.org/) returns 4, 
ERP5 (http://www.erp5.com) returns 5, 
Ramco_Systems (http://www.ramco.com) returns 5
  • Comment In practice, Google testing also winds up being subjective, because Google itself has certain selection biases that need to be accounted for. Measures of Google pagerank often wind up measuring "How much has this web site owner done to optimize his or her Google ranking?" as much or more as "How notable is this web site?" Leaving that aside, Made2Manage Systems, an article you nominated for deletion (in your only other apparent contribution to Wikipedia), also rates a 5 on your proposed test. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really interesting, because when I enter "http://wavelet.biz" into the page rank calculator, it returns 0. Even the sourceforge page only returns 2. Where did you get your result of 5? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Pagerank checkers usually check only the very specific URL they're given. "http://wavelet.biz" gets a 0 (since few if any links to the page use that form); but "http://www.wavelet.biz" (the more usual form) gets a 5. Kickaha Ota 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, thanks. That explains it, and also teaches me something I didn't know before. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.singcham.com.cn/shshshow.asp?zs_id=2550 Annietan— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment This is your third "Keep" 'vote' posted to this AfD, not counting any anonymous entries you may have made. And the list of invitees on that page includes such entries as "Tertiary Student Project - Multi-player Mobile Game - Chinese Chess". It would appear that Singapore's invitation criteria for this event were, shall we say, not particularly stringent. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It indicates that the competition is very complete, and it is open for different categories, from financial applications to business applications, and there are categories for students. If Wavelet.biz represents the student category, then it is not worthy, but Wavelet.biz was representing the business/industrial application categories. Do not confuse the readers with the participants in one category from the other. Also, Singapore government is well known for its government efficiencies, policies and competitiveness. Accusing the Singapore government of not doing their job, just to bring out the point that Wavelet.biz is not worthy of wikipedia because Singapore government is not doing their job may not be the best thing to do. For the record, I am a Singaporean, and feel disturbed by the statement above, and sorry for my fellow countrymen. Singapore may be a small country in terms of size and population. But please do not insult us, Singapore as not serious in running our own country. Marcussua 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Marcussua (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment My statement was certainly not an insult to Singapore. It was simply a statement that Singapore, like any other country, may run events or contests for participants of various levels of achievement and notability. Thank you for clarifying the nature of the contest, which was not clear from the source. Kickaha Ota 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelet.biz is recognized by Singapore Government and Singapore IT Federation, and represented Singapore in 2004 to participate in Asia ICT Awards in HK (year 2004). See http://www.singcham.com.cn/shshshow.asp?zs_id=2550

Wavelet.biz was selected and represented Malaysia to China to promote Malaysia ICT products and services. See: http://www.csia.org.cn/info/routine/Name%20List%20of%20Malaysian%20ICT%20SMM%202005.pdf#search=%22wavelet.biz%22%22 (no 26 in the list)

Wavelet.biz has passed the stringent compatibility test by Red Hat in various Linux platforms. https://www.redhat.com/apps/isv_catalog/AppProfile.html?application_id=2827 Annietan— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment You already mentioned the Asia ICT Awards invitation, and I already replied. Unfortunately, the csia.org.cn article you link is not in English, making it difficult to determine what selection criteria were used. And RedHat application profiles are provided by the application writers, meaning that they are frequently self-promotional, and a listing does not mean that the product is important or well-known or widely-distributed. I appreciate you trying to find English-language sources; I just want to point out the problems with the sources you have provided. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In summary, by removing the article, Wikipedian editors with limited exposure and knowledge would be happy. A community project like Wavelet.biz continues without being affected. Governments in south east asia will not be insulted. Other sockpuppets created by similar projects to bring down the Wavelet.biz wins. So, I would vote for Remove or Delete. Everyone is happy. Marcussua 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You seem to be perceiving this as a referendum on your own worth as a person and the worth of several countries, and perceiving the actions of everyone else in that light. Unfortunately, the premise is simply false, and as a result your perceptions of others' behavior are misdirected. Wikipedia's concept of "notability" does not equal "moral worth", it never has, it never will, and it is not intended to. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and especially Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Kickaha Ota 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
More