Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManuelbastioniLAB

ManuelbastioniLAB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

ManuelbastioniLAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, most sources I found in a quick google search are the creator of said software or users of it; additionally, the project is now defunct. Kb03 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kb03 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

*Comment: Temporary strike of !vote due to large number of malware attacks from MB-Lab search links *Keep or Speedy keep: (and rename MB-Lab) The project is now defunct seems a complete untruth as has community continued under MB-Lab to which name the page should be updated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or Speedy keep:(and rename MB-Lab). The project is not defunct as the nom claims however the main man withdrew his support and the community have taken over. @inbook{inbook, author = {Covre, Nicola and Nunnari, Fabrizio and Fornaser, Alberto and Cecco, Mariolino}, year = {2019}, month = {07}, pages = {23-42}, title = {Generation of Action Recognition Training Data Through Rotoscoping and Augmentation of Synthetic Animations}, isbn = {978-3-030-25998-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-25999-0_3} } is an additional reference not in the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete That's really poor sourcing - those that aren't dead (and apparently originally in-house) are little press-release type blurbs. That's not in-depth coverage, nor is it critical. The above book reference appears to be the result of a blind Google Book search - care to demonstrate where in the text the program is even mentioned, outside of one reference link? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Given RL current family issues I'm not going to respond to the blind allegation but the article has been enhanced since the last comment to address concerns. The initial nomination had serious issues claiming the project was defunct which while arguably strictly accurate was for practical purposes incorrect, and the fact something no longer exists is not in itself a reason for a nomination. Strictly speaking something does not actually need to be mentioned in the text if it is referenced, but it relies on context. Given I currently have only paid access to Covre et. al. and I am not paying for it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Not sure why people, who want to delete it, take their time to write reasons of lack of coverage, when they could have found articles like this one in a few seconds: https://www.digitalproduction.com/2019/07/24/open-source-character-creation-mit-mb-lab/ Secondly: Not sure why you people always want to delete stuff with a few thousand users, but never delete articles about e.g. plane designs, which had been manufactured only once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-Young_BY-1). That's pointless arbitrariness at best and repression of open source alternatives to paid software at worst. --82.206.28.66 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Back on 25 October 2019 improving the article my adding sources rather than accusing the PRODer of vandalism would likely have been a more productive pathway. As your editing appears only in connection with this subject can you please confirm whether or not you have a WP:COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. Just a user of MB-Lab, who wanted to read more about it. In my opinion trying to delete this article is vandalism as it tries to remove valid knowledge for no good reason. To me it is a far greater indicator for conflict of interest to delete it than to keep it as there is proprietary, paid software, which obviously has a benefit in removing potential competitors from wikipedia.

Regarding my revert: You are right, I could have added my sources to Wikipedia, but I don't want to be part of this toxic, bureaucratic 'community' again in which adding knowledge (even when sourced and relevant) gets reverted and you'll find yourself ganged up by a bunch of opinionated people, who vote each other into positions of power and then bully people with arbitrary application of rules, when the new information doesn't 100% agree with their worldview. Even now I regret that I have even tried to prevent someone from expunging information he or she does not want to be visible here. --82.206.28.66 (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)