Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavelet.biz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Wavelet.biz

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|links|watch|logs) Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I checked the http://sourceforge.net/projects/enterprise, it started about the same time as http://sourceforge.net/projects/compiere, and almost has 97% activitiy percentile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.169.41.40 (talk • contribs)
  • KeepI found another private software company, but it is a US private company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made2Manage, if Made2Manage can stay, perhaps Wavelet.biz should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The Made2Manage article has neutral, verifiable sources. Wavelet.biz's article currently does not. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, i think the page should stay, because wikipedia should be countries neutral, may be some of the editors/admin are not in South East Asia, but wikipedia should not discriminate countries, region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.160.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I disagree with the tone of your remarks and I don't think they're helpful, but I do want to thank you for actually improving the Wavelet.biz article by removing some of the inappropriate references to "we" and "our", rather than simply attacking other companies' articles and other editors' motives as some other anonymous users have done. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The cries of discrimination against Asian companies (or any company outside the US or UK) say little about the notability of this application or this article, and besides, anyone who looks at Category:Manhwa, Category:Manga, and Category:Anime can't say that there's no room here for Asian content. Simply whining about perceived bias isn't enough - this entry has to stand on its own, and it does not. It reads like a sales brochure ("Our system provides...", "Our e-commerce module comes with..."), and if the consensus is 'keep' it's going to need a lot of cleanup. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion, and if you don't think an entry is notable you should nominate it for deletion and allow the community to decide by consensus. Notability is decided by the community, However, like it or not, this is the English Wikipedia. We can't use sources written in Thai, Korean, Chinese or Japanese to verify the claims made here because most of us don't read those languages. I'm sorry about that, but this version of Wikipedia is written in English. Besides, there are plenty of articles here that aren't in the Thai/Japanese/Chinese/Korean Wikipedias, and vice versa. Please stop accusing editors of not acting in good faith, because it doesn't help you or this debate. Instead, tell us why the article should stay in the English Wikipedia based on the merits and use of the product and only the product. There are more than 125,000 projects at SourceForge, so having SourceForge as a host isn't part of the notability criteria. I can't get wavelet.biz to load after trying three different browsers, so someone else needs to explain the notability of the site/app and where the claims can be verified – in English. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep if the community intend to grow, and welcome international audience, and has good faith in international audience, and have good faith in international editors as well, they should respect their view and opinions, afterall, even though wikipedia is in english, but its purpose is to function as encyclopedia, recording everything under the sun... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.228.17 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Your comment would carry more weight if it wasn't for the fact that it's apparently the only thing you've ever contributed to this Wikipedia. Kickaha Ota 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What you do not know is not what does not exist. 58.71.254.145 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree, but your actions are truly inappropriate and undermine your own cause. From looking at your contribution history, we can see that you've done nothing to even attempt to improve the Wavelet.biz article. Instead, you've gone on the attack against seven other companies' articles, at least some of which are clearly better (both in terms of asserting notability and in terms of sourcing) than the Wavelet.biz article. There's still time for you to fix the Wavelet.biz article instead of trying to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Kickaha Ota 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lets compare the Wavelet.biz community project with the following:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24SevenOffice
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visma
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Software
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYSPRO
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTW_Incorporated
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_ERP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflux
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdee
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejunction
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntelliTrack
    Why remove a community project, and allow the software names above stay in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.160.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep To make it easier, lets define the page as a software STUB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.160.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep May be the more experience editor could help to improve the content a little. Based on the list of hyperlinks above, it seemed justified to have community project listed in wikipedia, since it is quite established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annietan (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete--No notoriety, all of the keeps below were made by one user (or owners of that company). --Palffy 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • (Note that the comment was added at the top and I moved the comment to the bottom for chronological order.) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Advertising. --Sleepyhead 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam for nn corp. Wickethewok 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in certain countries. Community Project, Open Source. Annietan 17:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep. Content should be improved, can keep as stub. Marcussua 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Marcussua (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment. Administrator: Please note that most of the keep votes are unsigned or from users without any other contributions. Probably sockpuppets. --Sleepyhead 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seem to be an ERP war going on.. perhaps Wikipedia should only list one or not more than 3 biggest ERP vendors, namely SAP, Oracle,.... The rest like NetSuite, Compiere, SYSPRO and other ERP vendors should be completely wipe out... The rest are all NN CORP. 58.71.254.145 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just found out that Sleepyhead has been disguised as afew different usernames and going around to vandalized other software company stubs. Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compiere, perhaps, only NetSuite and a few ERP companies that paid him to monitor other new up and coming competitors closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.254.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No evidence presented that it meets WP:CORP. Comparing it to other company/software articles on Wikipedia doesn't support notability; in fact, I see that a few of those mentioned have already been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ...and now I see that they were nominated for deletion by obvious retalitory sockpuppets. There are plenty of non-notable companies on Wikipedia that should probably be removed, but a few that you've chosen easily meet WP:CORP criteria. Choose your targets more wisely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Qualified delete. Assuming it was verifiable, this looks like it would be notable. I'm guessing it would probably pass WP:CORP if our readers could speak languages of Southeast Asia. Since it's unverifiable right now for lack of English sources I vote delete, but we should allow recreation without prejudice if it gets verifiable (i.e., English) coverage that satisfied WP:CORP. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass WP:V, WP:RS or WP:CORP at this point. Nice that this 'war' is helping remove these NN company articles. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Since this is the 'EN' version of Wikipedia, perhaps this should be transwikied to the asia wikipedia?--Brian (How am I doing?) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Extend AfD period and add sources to the article. The article appears to have been at least somewhat rewritten during the discussion, making it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like an advertisement. If I had to vote now, I'd still vote 'delete', because it's still missing one critical piece -- sources, other than the project's own website, to establish notability. A flood of folks have shown up to defend the article. I would highly encourage those people to use their knowledge of the product to find neutral, verifiable, preferably-English-language sources that establish the project's notability, and quickly add those sources to the article. I don't know if procedure allows for it, but I'd like to see them given every chance to do this. (I know that AfDs are occasionally extended for a few days if there's no consensus, which seems to be the case here.) Kickaha Ota 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "A flood of folks have shown up to defend the article" No, it is the same user and/or sockpuppets. --Sleepyhead 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I very much doubt they're all sockpuppets of one person -- at least some of them are probably other people involved with the Wavelet.biz project. If they just showed up at the request of someone who objected to the AfD, that might arguably make them 'meatpuppets', but it would also make them highly qualified to fix the darn article. :) Kickaha Ota 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I would dispute that there is no concensus here. Many of the keeps do not list valid reasons or refute the arguements of the people who have voted for delete. Remember, it is the strength of the arguements, not the strength of the numbers. At this time it looks like Delete is the concensus and nothing about the article (as of this post) has changed to refute those claims. Another thing to remember about the AfD process, (right from WP:AFD) Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Beyond all that this still falls into being "unencyclopedic" (violates WP:ENC). --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I got to slow down. Keep missing my signature
          • Good points. I'd still rather see the article fixed than deleted, but I don't know enough about the subject to fix it myself, so I can only hope that someone else fixes it in a hurry. Kickaha Ota 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
  • Comment - Seems like a lot of the articles listed here to try and defend this article are now up for deletion. I think we need to intensively review (and perhaps even modify) WP:CORP to come up with some sort of consensus concerning these small companies. And then, once that is done, go through each corporation page and either decide to keep it based on WP:CORP, or delete it so we don't have anymore "Well, if that company can stay, why can't this one!?" arguements. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ... and for the record, I say Delete, per all delete votes above. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google As Reference Since notability is subjective, a neutral approach is to use the Google page rank and roughly test out the importance of a page/project (1 = least important, 10 = most important):

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Ah, thanks. That explains it, and also teaches me something I didn't know before. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If a community project/team/organization is not notable in a country/regions, it would not have been selected by Singapore Government to represent the country and take part in international competition:

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)
    • 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.
  • 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)
  • Additional reference , copied from the article itself:

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)
  • comment I've strucken out the extra 'votes' by Annietan and also slapped that SPA tag on their posts. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to point out a striking thing about this debate: despite the volume of comments encouraging that the article be kept, every single one of them -- except for my own "quick, fix the darn article" comment -- has come either from an anon account or from what appears to be a single-purpose registered user account. In an AfD that superficially appears to have a volume of supporters on both sides, that's extraordinary. Kickaha Ota 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Facts vs Consensus Remove From what I see, in the interest of the wikipedia's editors' interest, it is better to remove Wavelet.biz. Since the primary users of the Wikipedia are wikipedia editors, facts are refuted, and subjective accusations, and "feelings" are taken into considerations. Pretty much like a war on who is more expert in creating some sort of SPA, to bring down the reputation of Wavelet.biz. Basically objective reference are discounted. Subjective comments are counted. Similar projects in wikipedia are kept, but Wavelet.biz is attacked by experienced wikipedia editors to play reverse psychology by creating sockpuppets etc. Articles that look like advertisements are kept, and article that state facts are removed. In order for the best interest of wikipedia, this discussion page itself should be removed forever, so that it does not affect the reputation of wikipedia.
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)
  • 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)
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.