Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.ima

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. - Mailer Diablo 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .ima

This is an article about an image format and/or image transformation software both of which fail WP:SOFTWARE. The author of the article is the author of the software, which makes this an article consisting of original research. Google search turns up no secondary sources describing this format/software. Valrith 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same situation with Microsoft products. Why should open-source software be treated differently?--Mihai cartoaje 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has written that we are allowed to write articles about our products and WP:SOFTWARE is a proposal not a policy.--Mihai cartoaje 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

MS advantage Not quite; MS products will launch with a million people buying them the first day. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What about winfs? It has an article an no one bought it.--Mihai cartoaje 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

libima can be added to linux and *bsd distributions, in which case it shall have millions of installations.-Mihai cartoaje 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the article is verifiable.

.ima is notable because,

• It has an original image transformation which is not covered anywhere else.
• The technical features compare well to other image formats.
• It is open-source so everyone is free to read it and learn from it.
• It is a community project in which everyone can participate, like Wikipedia.--Mihai cartoaje 08:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question for Mihai cartoaje: Do any applications use this library? Do any distros package it? Is the ima format finalized? Do people use it? If not, is there some really remarkable research aspect of this work that we should know about? My Alt Account 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Command line apps for converting to-from png.
• I have not asked yet.
• Pretty much, except that I have applied for a license to use spiht for entropy coding. If I get it I shall change to that.
• I don't know anyone else.
• The most original part of libima is the transformation. It is multi-resolution analysis, which means it looks the same every time we zoom in or out by a factor of 2, unlike JPEG which has a hardwired factor of 8 in the DCT transformation. Yet it has the same computational complexity in time and memory when decompressing as JPEG. It also allows lossy and lossless compression to be done using the same integer transformation. This allows programmers to implement them both using the same API without making the codec bigger. In the SPIHT version, it implements the spiht algorithm using little ( O(log n) ) memory when decompressing by using recursion instead of lists and encoding bits in the inverse order they are read. The spiht version to which I don't have a license yet is here [1]. I have not seen this way of implementing spiht anywhere else. (libima does not implement the full wavelet transformation found in the spiht demonstration programs. Instead, it only uses spiht to encode coefficients by allocating less bits for small coefficients and more bits for large coefficients, also known as entropy coding).--Mihai cartoaje 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your work is interesting (to me) but not fit for wikipedia. In a nutshell, nobody's using it but you. However, you might find a home for this at Multimedia Wiki. You can add all the technical detail you want, including full specs, and that'll actually increase the chances that people will like the article. Make sure to mention that it's experimental, as you should have done here. My Alt Account 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- What makes this notable, if that can be demonstarted please keep, if it cannot, delete. ---- Eagle (ask me for help) 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No assertion of notability. Resolute 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As best as I can tell, nobody's using it but the author. My Alt Account 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft's media photo was added to wikipedia while it was still being developped [2]. --Mihai cartoaje 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The .ima article is not contrary to Wikipedia's no original research policy because everything in the article is verifiable either from the libima website or the source code. Much of the information on computer programs on Wikipedia come from similar sources. --Mihai cartoaje 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, since everything on the libima website (which includes the source code) is original research, it's not usable as a reliable source for purposes of verifiability. Valrith 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Why are we even debating verifiability? I think it's plenty verifiable. The real problem is that nobody is using it. It's beyond obscure. Only the author of the format is known to have made any use of it. My Alt Account 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It takes a lot of time and lot of effort to push a new graphics format for wide use. Pavel Vozenilek 02:49, 10 September 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.