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 keep. Article has been developed since nomination, with several reliable sources added. As noted in discussion, the article should be moved to MB-Lab, under which name the company is better known, and for which sources are easier to find. Discussion has moved to keep since article was rewritten and sources added. SilkTork ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

ManuelbastioniLAB (  | 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) reply

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

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

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

*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) reply

• Comment: (See !re-vote below)*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) reply
• 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) reply

• 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) reply

• 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 ( /info/en/?search=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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• Neutral: I have decided to withdraw my keep !vote and leave the fate here to others. Feel free to back out my attempts to improve the article which may have made things worse. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

If my comment changed your mind, I'm sorry. I'm only lamenting the pointless destruction of knowledge, which feels like book burning to me, while I respect the effort of adding and improving information and adding sources as you did. It's all subjective capriciousness around here and people keep e.g. /info/en/?search=Global_Diplomacy just because some random editor likes it, while deleting (imho more relevant) articles like MB-Lab, just because someone wants to feel the dopamine rush of power and love to destroy the work of others to alleviate their boredom. -- 82.206.28.74 ( talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

p.s. The 'book burning' comparison might sound exaggerated, but I want you to look at the article contributions of the editor, who started this deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=500&target=Kb03&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=

It's just rollbacks. Sometimes the user even rollbacks their own rollbacks. One might argue this is necessary, but please look at e.g. the 126 rollbacks on just 15 October 2019 or the 356 (!!!) rollbacks on 17 September 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=Kb03&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2019-09-17&end=2019-09-17&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions

To me this does not seem like constructive behavior. The 356 rollbacks on 17 September 2019 occurred in a span of 3 hours and 36 minutes. Even if we add another 3 hours of work before that we get one rollback every 71 seconds. It find it quite unbelievable that someone can read, evaluate and rollback (sourced) changes so quickly... and to me this seems like a user, who just loves destroying other people's work. I think it would be more productive to investigate this user instead of allowing him to continue their obsessive vandalism. But I'm not sure how to raise attention on Wikipedia to this nowadays and honestly I don't want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore because of users like Kb03. -- 82.206.28.74 ( talk) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom and Elmidae as failing WP:GNG. The behavior shown by the IP editor here is WP:NOTHERE style behavior. Crying WP:IQUIT does not accomplish anything, reading the rules and making a coherent argument does. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 09:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The argument was "topic was covered by a major industry site"

The only "not reading the rules" was me writing "vandalism" in the revert reason instead of reverting without reason and writing "vandalism" on the editor's talk page as Kb03 does all the time.

It's completely ridiculous to label my actions as WP:NOTHERE, when I was trying to prevent a topic from being deleted by someone who seems to be obsessed with destroying other people's work (prime example: Kb03's hundreds of rollbacks in one day). Even his reasoning is faulty:

Not only does Kb03 admit that he did only a quick google search, he even saw the relevant articles (why else would he write 'most sources' instead of 'all sources') and failed to communicate (I believe deliberately) that the project is NOT defunct as two of the top 10 google results mention the continuation of the project by the community.

Best case scenario: Kb03 is reckless. Worst case scenario: Kb03 is deliberately destructive.

So please address the points instead of claiming the argument does not exist. -- 82.206.30.76 ( talk) 16:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: As relisted 3rd time without guidance no little sensible comment can be made by me. Experienced admin will likely wade through this lot and article changes and just possibly go non-consensus keep so there can be a breather and a re-list at AfD in a couple of months. Delete will likely possibly result in WP:DRV by me. I can't be 100% sure relister isn't trying to get me to canvas me into going for a keep !vote .... I can get very unstable on 3rd relists ..... see relister talk if necessary and have requested they stay clear of AfD's in which I'm involved. Messy. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Actually adding the !votes methinks we currently have a delete. at a push soft. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep The fact that it might be defunct does not make this topic worthy of deletion. Seems like it generated a minor amount of buzz. Certainly more notable than the BY-1 plane that the other user pointed out. How about we delete that article instead? Bluedude588 ( talk) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

**Yeah, yeah! If this is deleted, this needs to be deleted too! JohaNepomuk ( talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Comment was made by sockpuppet. Bluedude588 ( talk) 03:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Significant non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] Samboy ( talk) 15:30, 29 November 2019 (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.