Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SILO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tplewe (talk | contribs) at 05:04, 18 June 2006 (→‎[[SILO]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

  • Keep. This article is in line with all of the other software articles referenced at 3D computer graphics software. Silo is already referred to near the bottom of that article as Silo(software). This article should perhaps be renamed to Silo(software) to match the other entries. Anonymous 22:06 17 June 2006 (GMT)
  • 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)
  • CommentI have no problem with it 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!Tplewe
  • 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
  • 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. MDonfield 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]