Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse Group

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. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable company, sources cited are the company's own (there is one, from Scoring Notes, that looks secondary but is based on their press release) and a search finds nothing better. There doesn't even seem to be much to say about the company, as the contents are mostly about their products. (There is also some likely COI editing involved.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reliable indepth coverage available. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard one, TBH. Audacity is very much a thing and Muse appear to have goofed up quickly with the user community. There's little out there beyond the acquisition news and the company could be relegated to a few lines in the Audacity article at this time. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Many sources cited are mentions, primary or about their products. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I think it was a bit soon for the company to get its own article considering it's very new and therefore doesn't have much notability or sourcing (outside of the company itself). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2021 (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.