Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SILO

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was delete. Despite the many keep votes, nearly all were from new users. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SILO

edit

Contested prod. Advertisement. Not particularly notable. Morgan Wick 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I should note that I'm a developer of Silo. I did not write the article. I'll be happy to remove my vote if it is against wikipedia's policies. (I admit I am not very familiar with the policies, despite using wikipedia frequently as a reference.) It does seem a little odd for wikipedia to have articles on nearly all of the software with which Silo is commonly associated, and not on Silo or Nevercenter, so I was happy to see somebody make the effort to start one up. Feed
  • Keep. This tool is really innovative and the developpers are continuously implementing users requests. As a specialised innovative tool, i don't consider those informations like advertising, it provides knowledge about the state of 3d graphics. I would like to see links articles about model topology and displacement painting being added. janimatic 22:52 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep. It's a fantastic tool and people deserve to know about it, it might be an up and coming app but its earnt a lot of serious interest and respect from many pros RogerKnightly 21:16 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep There are many reviews of Silo in major magazines, it is a legitimate 3d modeling tool. I will edit it to make it less like an advertisement and more factually accurate Tplewe 21:00 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment This isn't sock puppetry, the people coming here are coming from a forum post saying that Silo was being considered for deletion because it wasn't considered to be notable software, and there are many professionals who disagree and happy to say so. I have no problem with the post being changed to be less ad-like, I didn't make the article and I'm happy for the price info to be removed or other changes, but it was suggested for deletion because it was supposedly not "notable" and that is flatly untrue, and I don't know any other way to prove that than to have people who know about it say so or to state in the article that it is used by many major video game companies. If you're going to change your vote based on getting offended at this, that seems very unprofessional to me. Silo should be held to the same standard as the entries for Zbursh or Modo or other comparable software, so take a look at them and then change Silo's entry to match that. Seriously, I'm not trying to pull anything, please don't attack people who are new to this. Wiklipedia recommendation: don't attack newbies! Every post here is from real people who really are trying to help Tplewe
  • A forum post directing people here? Sounds like a textbook case of {{afdanons}}! I've added it. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states that "it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia."--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This sock puppetry is a total disgrace. There have only been two legitimate votes - DrunkenSmurf's and mine - both for delete. These guys are having a laugh at us. BlueValour 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep The article does read like an advert but the company IMO does appear to meet WP:CORP as I can find at least three reviews of the product easily with a simple google search. (The Macworld review is also a source link on the article itself and clearly is non-trivial.) Perhaps we can give the the creator of the article some time to make the content less like an advert. Delete DrunkenSmurf 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the clear sockpuppetry going on here I have changed my vote to Delete. If you want people to take your company and product seriously and want support for this article (which I had given) then dont be a jackass and pull stunts like this. DrunkenSmurf 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silo is definitely a real tool, in a real world, used by real people. JuanManuel
  • Comment I might not exist as a registered user, but as my IP states, I do exist in cyberspace. I am surprised with the negative attitude some people are feeling towards this addition to the Wikipedia. I have contributed on occasion to broadening the information in the wikipedia, without so much ado, and as such I feel somewhat let down that I am considered as nonexistent. Returning to the subject at hand, I sincerely believe that this is no publicity stunt on nevercenter's part. They are too busy to pull something like that. Or by anybody else for that matter. There is in fact a community effort on silo's official forum in order to provide unbiased, solid, neutral, objective information to the Silo entry in the wikipedia. Juan Manuel, the non-existant entity in cyberspace.
  • Keep I don't see this as advertisement. It's a legible entry for anyone concerned with 3D polygonal/subD modeling. In case there is no ban on software entries I don’t see why this entry should be treated under a different rule. 3dEE
  • Keep Silo is a legitimate tool that forces a 3d artist to consider there edge loops and general construction plus its user base is strong and well natured.DarthWayne
  • Delete, article is more an advert than legitimate information on what may be an adequate entry-level 3d modeling tool, but in its current form the article appears to be more like ad copy. Mention of the price and comparing it to other higher end products seems irrelevant unless the author's intent is to actively promote this product. The first two links referenced lead to the same corporate website which further damages the impartiality of this article. Neutral MDonfield 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of my objections to the initial article's wording have been addressed. I also wonder whether the mention of companies using the software really belong in the opening paragraph, and whether saying version 2.0 "is soon to be released" is actually relevant for an introductory article. In Addition, the listing on the disambiguation page refers to the product as "powerful", which again gives the feel of a press release. MDonfield 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Due to efforts to bring the article to standards, vote changed to Neutral. MDonfield 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the best subdivision surface modeling tools in existance. Makes me sad to see that this article is seen by some people as advert. This groundbraking tool speaks for itself and needs no adverts to be successful. Facts about it need to remain in wikipedia, period. Kemal 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment To those who are familiar with Wikipedia and balloting against this page being up, please look at the article in its current state and, given the facts of respectable magazines having written articles on Silo (Macworld, 3DWorld, etc), plus Nevercenter's site being first on the list when you type Silo in Google, plus Silo being used by major studios, why the page shouldn't be up considering the pages that are up for competing products such as Modo and Zbrush. Feel free to change the page to remove any advertisements. We're all learning about wikipedia, not trying to pull anything, and apologize for any confusion. Please refrain from name calling. Thank you! Tplewe
  • Delete - I don't see how this meets software guidelines given this information. Wickethewok 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the discussion here should center less on accusations (wholly unsubstantiated as far as an observer can tell) of sockpuppetry and such and return to Wikipedia's true interests -- providing factual and impartial info for significant portions of readers. CGSociety (cgsociety.org) regards Silo highly enough to sponsor a forum where its members can specifically discuss Silo, a forum comfortably ensconced between the Luxology Modo forum and the Pixologic ZBrush forum, both of which have entries here, and rightly so since they are of interest to many readers. Surely we must agree that if the foremost internet gathering of computer graphics professionals considers Silo of equally significant importance to their industry then Wikipedia can with confidence take a cue from them. Beginning entry writers and editors, in my opinion, should be given encouragement and specific suggestions for improvement of their entries (ala MDonfield) and never anything resembling scathing, uninformed put-downs. Sarsi 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If at one time the Silo article was in violation of policy, it no longer appears to be. A well-intentioned effort has been made to correct the situation. This is as it should be. As such, I am confused by the intent to ‘punish’ Silo’s representation in the Wikipedia due to someone’s post that may well have been guilty only of an ignorance of policy. Where do we stop with this odd effort to remove the current page? Shall we dig up all the info on all those who wish to keep and delete the article and poll the web of connections in pursuit of some private agenda to either ‘character assassinate’ Silo or ‘evangelize’ it? Absurd. As has been stated, Silo is real software in the real world used by real people, and it continues to evolve and therefore is marching into the future with the rest of us (well, most of us, anyway). I fail to see why this article should be stricken from the body of Wikipedia based on issues that no longer hold any water. Further, I believe it would be contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia. [an unregistered user of the Wikipedia] 65.40.197.173 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) fuzzyEuclid[reply]
  • Comment Tree Biting Conspiracy - you did not address the question of why direct competitor software is allowed to have exactly equivalent pages on here. Please answer this question to add something new to the discussion and to show that you're reading this discussion. Tplewe 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, I was adressing the user above me, who claimed that the article should be kept simply because it is "real". Also, simply being a competitor of a notable product doesn't make it notable as well (though I do question the notability of the two software titles that you've mentioned above).--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having waded through the arguments for and against deleting non-notable articles I do think Wikipedia should come to some reasonable sort of resolution to this debate. Not to do so will clearly, in my mind, lead to very many other disenchanted possible future contributors to this resource besides myself. If Tree Biting Conspiracy and others have decided that all CG related software other than perhaps a smallish handful as well as the contents of reputable print and online resources that clarify them for the CG community are non-notable, verification pretty much becomes a farce. And the judgement of the few on-the-scene experienced Wikipedians has thus potentially been enabled to run riot over contributors, especially first time contributors, without actually saying much about anything relevant. Nobody likes a biased encyclopedia -- and limiting bias requires standards clearly stated. Sarsi 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well since all external factors - glowing review in Macworld, as well as all other important CG publications, users at many top video game and special effects companies, and inclusion on the top cg internet forums - point to Silo being perfectly equivalent to Modo and Zbrush in every respect, I can't respect your comments until you go to their pages and suggest deletion also. You continue to give no response as to why this should be deleted if those aren't, given the logical obviousness of their equivalence. I am growing soured by my first wikipedia experience and can see why news outlets are starting to report its problems. All I'm asking for is a rational response to my question. How long does this need to keep going on before someone reasonable can make a final decision anyway?Tplewe 21:18, 20 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SILO&oldid=1265662157"