Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuLab

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. czar ⨹ 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MuLab

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

No real notability shown for this software, and the article is only referenced to company site and press releases. Wording is rather promotional in places. Peridon (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. This PC World article is fairly in depth, but with download links is not entirely independent, and a search did not turn up any other significant RS coverage, just blogs and incidental mentions.Dialectric (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Not one of the most major applications in this field. There was this review on MusicRadar, which seems to be a high-ranking site for musicians. Together with the PC World review, it might be barely enough to scrape by on RS. It was also ranked in the 2014 MusicRadar poll of The 19 best DAW software apps in the world today. The MusicRadar review could be used to tone down the promotional wording. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Based on what sources are linked and what I was[n't] able to find on my own, I think it falls short of WP:NSOFT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability even compared to other DAWs. On a related note, there are a few dozen rather un-notable articles for similar pieces of software listed at Digital audio workstation. Should they be considered for deletion? Piboy51 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (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.