- 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alias Eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) jon banquer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk)
I cannot find significant coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources, therefore it does not meet the notability guidelines. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 14:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is abusive: you have obviously not searched. A google search of "alias eclipse" returns nearly 4,000 links from various sources of information about this software program. It was widely known in the visual effects industry and is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. And I might add that it is certainly more notable than some of the articles that you have chosen to add to Wikipedia, such as "Red Cunt Hair" and "Boothill Foottappers." A quick glance at your contributions reveal several two-sentence articles about obscure topics with only one or two references. These do not warrant Wikipedia entries and I will have them deleted.--Ajerimez (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The software is out of print according to the first hit on a simple google search, and I can't find a company note about it, or anyone who owns it. The closest reference is in GERMAN, which is hard to read for an ENGLISH article. I don't mind foreign sources but this is very hard to prove notability besides a one off mention in an article.--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ajerimez that comment seems abusive, and almost a threat man. Please don't make threats over wikipedia to call deletion votes because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when does Wikipedia permit entries only for software that is currently available for sale? Plenty of the content on this site is for defunct products that were nevertheless notable in their time. Maybe you should take down the Ford Model T page since nobody sells the car anymore? A few minutes spent on google would confirm that Eclipse was a high-end imaging package that was used throughout the visual effects industry in the 1990's, just like Avid Matador and Elastic Reality were (two programs which are no longer available for sale yet somehow have Wikipedia articles).
I don't want to be confrontational, but this just isn't fair. The Alias Eclipse article is being inappropriately singled-out for deletion when it contains legitimate information about a notable software product. This is totally arbitrary and hypocritical considering some of the questionable content that seems to be allowed to remain on this site.--Ajerimez (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ajerimez, please don't take this personally. We are just trying to determine whether the article belongs on Wikipedia or not. The best way to make your point is by being calm and discussing it with people here, not by being aggressive. And please do stop typing everything in bold! Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can actually buy model T kits though, and the Model T is the most important car from an American POV as it introduced mass production and other important modern car innovations. That software did not show up but as dead software on my search. I know about the workstations it used, I have used one back when I was a youth, but simply LINK to better sources here. As of now I cannot in all fairness support it being kept up. I don't go hunting for articles to delete but I am trying to give my opinion here. --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in the reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the bold text, I am not accustomed to Wikipedia's system. It's frustrating that many articles on this site seem to have far less substance (and far fewer references) than the Eclipse article, yet they are permitted to remain. That's why I'm taking this personally. I just flagged a few of Chzz's own articles for proposed deletion, as they all contained far less substance and fewer references than the Eclipse article. The deletion flags were promptly removed. So it seems that there is definitely favoritism on here, and that decisions about notability requirements are made not based on objective standards but based on who posted them. That, again, is why I'm taking this personally. If you honestly want to say that you're objective and fair, then treat all articles equally. And if you'd like more references to substantiate the Eclipse article, then I'll go find some.--Ajerimez (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google Scholar returned 0 hits; Google Books returned 19 hits, but most of those were of the "xxx was done using Alias Eclipse software" - none of them were longer than 1 short sentence. Google News returned 4 hits - again no more than 1 short sentence about the software was mentioned. A Google Web search yielded no significant hits from reliable sources. Of the three references provided on the article page, the first (design-engine.com) consists of 7 sentences about this software; the second (freelibrary.com) is a press release about Xyvision returning the software to Alias; the third (digitalkamera.de) is a German review of the software - I'd be more inclined to agree that this should be in the English Wikipedia (as opposed to the German one) if a review in a reliable English-language source could be found. In summary - not enough evidence found to indicate that this software is notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The language of a source does not determine what language Wikipedia a subject is treated in. We do not impose such systemic biases. Indeed, we actively work on countering them. Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but as that is the only review, and the only reference with any significant coverage out of those provided, I said that I'd be "more inclined to agree" if English sources were available - as someone not fluent in German, I can't judge whether that particular website is a reliable one or not. The German wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article under "digitalkamera.de", "digitalkamera", "digital kamera", "digital kamera magazin", "digital kamera zeitschrift" or "digital kamera wirtscaftsjournalismus" - which would appear to be the searches that would include this website. If I could verify that it is a reliable source, it wouldn't be a problem - and to be honest, if there were 3 or 4 reviews on German language sites, I would be happier too. If this was one review on an English-language site, I'd be as hesitant - reviews are often based on press releases.
- The language of a source does not determine what language Wikipedia a subject is treated in. We do not impose such systemic biases. Indeed, we actively work on countering them. Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, if you look at other articles that I have found references for, many have been from non-English sites (Spanish, Italian) even though I don't read these (thank goodness for Google Translate!). I agree that English-only references are not required, but in this case there I'd be happier if there were more significant coverage (English language ones make it easier for me to confirm the content, without Google Translate) - if there was significant coverage in other languages, I'd be quite happy to accept that it is notable. At the end of the day, I can't find those sources in any language at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on the reference checking by Phantomsteve. Reviews are very poor indicators of notability, and there are no other sources. Of course, I hold no prejudice to recreation if the contributors to the article dig up notable references in the future. If the software is old, the sources maybe in print that is more difficult to acquire and reference. My criteria is - sources first. This lacks them. Miami33139 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think we should preserve traces of software history. With regards to the comments above about 'Google Scholar' and 'Google Books' books hits: The same is true of manu other subjects, and especially non-consumer software, that are pre-internet. It doesn't mean things that predate the late 90s do not exist or matter. The way wikipedia works best is by having the page here and people gradually contribute information through the years. As an alternative this information could be merged this into its parent company entry Alias_Systems_Corporationlucericr (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I acknowledge that earlier software that pre-date the WWW should be included, there needs to be significant coverage as per WP:NOTABILITY. I do not dispute that the software existed (there is enough evidence for that), but if it was a notable piece of software, I would expect to find more coverage. However, I would certainly support merging any usable information with the parent company article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:V, a core policy, says we need significant coverage in reliable sources. It says nothing about them being on the web; if there are books, magazines, plaques on buildings, or any other forms of appropriately verifiable reliable source, then yes, that's fine. If not, then the consensus-based policy says "no". Lucericr, if you disagree with this policy, then please suggest a policy change. Furthermore, there are plenty of topics which predate the WWW but have no problems in satisfying the requirements for sources. Chzz ► 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry how did this article come under your scrutiny? From what I'm seeing this article is just 10 days old and reliable references have been added since you flagged it for deletion. It could have been flagged with the 'need source' template or 'stub article' template, as per Wikipedia policy. But in any case, this article now has references to Business Wire and a magazine covering the software. Let the article grow. It's as good as it needs to be in its first week. lucericr (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't say anything about them having to be web-based sources! If someone can find old professional computing magazines (in the UK, that'd be Computing which has been around since the 70s, and Computer Weekly which has been around since the 60s; in the US, possibly Byte - although that probably wouldn't have covered this kind of software - Computer, eWeek (or PC Week), possibly Government Technology Magazine). There may be others (and also in other countries), but those are the ones that come to mind. If someone can find books with significant coverage of this software, that'd be good enough for me too. I don't have access to anything like that, but others may. I have looked as much as I can, so I'll have to leave it to someone else - but unless something significant can be found, then I see no reason why this article should not be deleted. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Byte magazine, eWeek, these are all consumer magazines or PC users, stuff that sell to the masses. You generally won't find references to high-end SGI software from the 90s in there, that's not the what that world is, and that's not how the world worked. Again, it's totally fine to this information into to Alias' page, but deleting information as thought it was never written unless someone does extensive research at the library to defend it against you, seems to be just destructive. "Notability" doesn't means Wikipedia only has coverts popular topics, widely known, and relevant the mass market and immediately googlable. Much of the non-consumer software history from the 1980 1990s is on paper, sources that are lost or difficult to get to. What deletion does is erase the collective memory, deleting the collective culture, prevent this information to grow. It's not like removing vanity page, biased or debatable information; it's deleting just a list of facts, things that have happened. Things people might look up with Google in the years to come. I think Wikipedia is the best place to host these. And let's be frank, it has no problem hosting a full description of Stargate episodes or characters, magical characters in Harry Potter semi-obscure actors, or a list round-shaped vegetable; why must software history be quickly erased. lucericr (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose those magazines because (with the exception of Byte), they are all aimed at IT managers and IT professionals - not hobbyists and home users. As to what notability means - I go by the definition at WP:NOTABILITY. I can't talk for anyone else, only myself, but my aim is not to erase software history - I just think that it should be held to the same standard as any article. Yes, the references to this software will be more likely than not paper-based. Yes, some of it would be hard to find - but where in the Wikipedia policies does it say that "if resources are hard to find then you can let it have an article anyway"? Also, if this was software that was only developed and in use in the 80s, I'd be more sympathetic, but as this is a piece of software that was still be developed by Formvision at least in 2001 (according to the final reference on the article) - and I presume it was developed beyond that - I'd expect there to be more online references (after all, the WWW became more commonplace when Mosaic was released in 1993), or in magazines in the last 8 years. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Byte magazine, eWeek, these are all consumer magazines or PC users, stuff that sell to the masses. You generally won't find references to high-end SGI software from the 90s in there, that's not the what that world is, and that's not how the world worked. Again, it's totally fine to this information into to Alias' page, but deleting information as thought it was never written unless someone does extensive research at the library to defend it against you, seems to be just destructive. "Notability" doesn't means Wikipedia only has coverts popular topics, widely known, and relevant the mass market and immediately googlable. Much of the non-consumer software history from the 1980 1990s is on paper, sources that are lost or difficult to get to. What deletion does is erase the collective memory, deleting the collective culture, prevent this information to grow. It's not like removing vanity page, biased or debatable information; it's deleting just a list of facts, things that have happened. Things people might look up with Google in the years to come. I think Wikipedia is the best place to host these. And let's be frank, it has no problem hosting a full description of Stargate episodes or characters, magical characters in Harry Potter semi-obscure actors, or a list round-shaped vegetable; why must software history be quickly erased. lucericr (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This thing is a mess ... oh well, what's a body to do. I guess someone who cares can clean up the talk page. :
Several of you appear to be blithering idiots. Sorry, but truth is truth.Eclipse was a very well-known high-end image editing program before PhotoShop became famous. It is quite simple to find references on the web to substantiate this, if one has the search skills of a third-grader or better. Here's one which took me all of thirty seconds to find:
http://www.design-engine.com/alias/history.html
Alias Eclipse / Alias|Wavefront Eclipse
Alias bought Full Color Publisher and marketed their SGI Irix-based image retouching program, Eclipse. It used a proxy mode and post render, similar to Live Picture, where the brush strokes are recorded during the interactive editing then rendered at high resolution on the full size image in a post process.
Version 3.0 was the first version released by Contex, a Xyvision company, when Xyvision bought Eclipse from Alias|Wavefront in summer 1997. Barco purchased Xyvision since, and Eclipse had been picked up by Formvision, who reported they plan on porting Eclipse to Windows NT on their web site at www.formvision.de. The site was down when I last checked.
A former A|W staffer writes that there was a version of Eclipse that ran on Sun Solaris. That version was built for Japanese reseller Konica, with a Japanese UI.
If you can't handle single paragraph unbiased descriptions of fairly famous software (Eclipse was the tool of several very well-known photographers in the late 90's) then perhaps you'd better shut down this ridiculous travesty of a so-called encyclopaedia Would any of you deleters happen to understand the meaning of the word "encyclopaedia", by any chance ?
Oh, another thirty seconds brought this up :
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/software/10454-eclipse-imaging-software.html
Hi Nicolaas,
WOW I didn't think this was still around. I was using version 2 of this in about 1996 on SGI machines. It is excellent for creating comps and warping - better than Photoshop is today!!! Then it was called AliasEclipse owned buy the same company that made a tiny fledgeling application called AliasWavefront (its called Maya now and look where that is)!
Unfortunately for the price and the extra features today i'd have to give my Sterling to Adobe. But I still often work on LivePicture or Barco Creator to use other features.
Bill
yeah, never existed, wasn't important enough for an entry in the omniscient wikipedia, can't find *anything* about it. Bah. Mr Chzz appears to have the intellectual perspicacity of a contented ruminant. Samuel Johnson would have none of this nonsense, certainly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first reference is a 3-paragraph section - hardly significant coverage - if you had several sources like that, I'd be more impressed. The second is from a forum, which is hardly a reliable source. I can't talk for anyone else, but I looked hard (and a lot more than a couple of mins) and couldn't find significant coverage.
- Incidently, no one here has the attitude "yeah, never existed, wasn't important enough for an entry in the omniscient wikipedia, can't find *anything* about it." - no one has suggested that the software didn't exist - we're merely discussion whether it is notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Perhaps you need to read the discussion more carefully!
- However, as all of us blithering idiots obviously can't do a search for toffee, I look forward to you finding tons of of good sources of information from reliable sources. I found those two, and discounted them for the reasons I've given. But, please show me what an idiot I am by finding significant coverage in reliable sources! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen minutes worth of looking returns these :
http://www.raymond.cc/forum/freebies/13554-eclipse-for-graphic-design-enthusiasts.html
Good thing you aren't a professional researcher, you'd starve. As for relevance, since wikipedia seems to think that "used panties" is of earth-shattering importance, a piece of software that was comparable to PhotoShop before PhotoShop existed, used by several famous artists and cost approximately $2,000 dollars US just *might* be considered significant enough to not delete after your excruciatingly thorough fifteen minute search. Just because *you* don't know something certainly does not mean it is not relevant or important.A short email to herr Herbrich might turn up quite a lot more but hey now ! We wouldn't want to delay this important deletion ! After all, wikipedia's (feeble) reputation is at stake here !
Just came across a couple more. You deleters are truly amazing researchers,you know ? Next time I have an Easter Egg hunt I'm going to invite you all. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)jon banquer[reply]
OK
Could you be a bit more precise about the herbrich.com reference - where does it mention Alias Eclipse? I know that your 3rd reference there mentions that he uses it, but his website doesn't mention this - so this website couldn't be used as a reference, as there is no mention of the software.
- Sigh
- website -> front page -> Creative Concept -> Postproduction
- "My equipment consists of Silicon Graphics, Apple and PC computers with ECLIPSE software, a drum scanner and a FIRE transparency plotter -- all terribly high-end expensive devices. By the way, I used to do compositing in conventional labs for 15 years before I took up electronic compositing."
the second one is already a reference on the article (did you actually read the article?)
- I'm not all that interested in the article, to tell you the truth. I'm more interested in why some little officious twit (yes, chzz, I mean you) wants to dump a simple, clean, three paragraph article about a piece of software history for no reason.
is a forum - so not counted as a reliable site for Wikipedia's purposes
- certainly. But posters in forums can be good leads to other, better sources of material. The fact that mentions of this program *exist* in forums is a good enough indication that the software was known and important enough to avoid deleting it before anyone can add better data. Again, we return to the fact that a certain collection of consonants is an officious, ignorant little twit.
the www.computerwoche.de reference is a good one (I don't know enough to know about the reliability of this website from Wikipedia's point of view), but I'd be quite happy for that to be used as a source for the article Likewise the magnus.de reference is a good source from what I can see.
Bear in mind that most of us are not professional researchers, and never claim to be.
- But that's exactly what people *did* claim. The original article was fairly factual, innocuous, and mentioned a program that could very well be a precursor to later, better-known software. There is no bias shown in the initial article, no fanboyizm, no extravagant claims, just some facts about what could be an interesting predecessor to the modern world of 2D computer graphics. So why delete it ?
- Apparently because Twit Chzz and a few others "can't find any reliable references" That's about as close as anyone can come to saying "This entry is not worth keeping because *we* cannot find anything about it." -- aka, a claim that chzz is the world's highest authority. If he can't find substantiating proof in thirty seconds then off to the ovens with the article.
- Sorry but that's poor reasoning. Especially since you couldn't find a reference on a website that took me all of five minutes - and I'm possibly the world's worst researcher. I start out looking for a copy of "Hello, World !" and end up reading about Harold, the last of the Saxons.
As you are so good at it, and so keen on rescuing the article,
- I'm not keen on the article, I think wikipedia is a joke and y'all are pompous fools. This article is a clear example of why I feel that way. There is so much absolute crap on wikipedia, yet some dork with a god complex spends his time deleting a small, reasonable, factual mention of an early, possibly historic piece of software. Why ? Little peepee syndrome ? Is this thing an encyclopedia or a gossip column ? Some crappy rap CD merits a full page of gushing fanboy bootlicking but you feel you responsibly must delete a small unbiased article about a piece of computer history ?
- Someone's priorities are pretty skewed around here.
may I suggest that you add text to the article (along with suitable citations including the above), and maybe spend a bit more time finding more references?
I am not totally convinced, but perhaps rather than just being critical about us,
- I'm not being critical of "us" -- did you notice that several other people (politely) remarked that deleting this article was not wise ? And our little hero reprimanded them ? I am being critical of a few wannabe banana republic dictators who are not capable of rational thought yet still want to exert their power. Yes, chzz : go jump off a bridge. You're a fool and an imbecile.
you might actually do some editing on the article and convince us with your obviously superior skills.
- I'm not sooo interested in Eclipse but yeah. That was the point. Leave the article up. The software is obviously important enough to rate an entry. Perhaps it does belong in a subset of Alias entries. But if you delete it now merely because someone with serious mental health problems wants to throw his weight around, then no one can add more data, dui bu dui ?
I'm assuming that this IP is not your normal editing account, otherwise you have edited on 4 articles (none of them very big edits) that are not connected to this one, and none of which have substantially expanded the article in question.
- Yup again. I'm not a wikipedia person. I only do edits when the grammar is so bad I that can't stand it or some "fact" is so misrepresented that I am compelled to get out the keyboard.
Go on, impress us all by expanding this article with lots of extra information and sources! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can keep the consonantal pseudo-Strangelove with the blue badge of power around his nym from deleting the article I'll be happy enough :P
- Maybe I'll send an e-mail to Thomas Herbrich, who apparently still uses the program and could provide more data. That's if we can restrain our lesser wannabe godlings, anyhow. Cheers ! :D 210.22.142.82 (talk) jon banquer
- Keep per the presence of at least two reliable sources. This article from Computerwoche and this article from magnus.de provide in-depth reliable coverage about this software. Note to 210.22.142.82 (talk · contribs): please don't make any more personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking over the submitted references, that's what I concluded also. Full 3rd party reviews from 2 major German computer magazines show notability. They don;t have to be physically added to the article itself before the close. Regardless of the deplorable tone of some of the critique above, the message about the unwillingness to do a proper search was very much to the point. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with rationale of DGG --Milowent (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2009 (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.