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. ...without prejudice to the question of notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Label[edit]

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

No real evidence for notability. See WP:CORP. No reliable sources are cited. See WP:RS and WP:V. A Google search found large numbers of promotional hits and incidental mentions on blogs usually in articles about other topics, but failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Thus article currently fails GNG, CORP and V. That's three strikes. Additionally article appears to be a WP:PROMO piece by a naked WP:COI. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no doubt that this label is notable and worthy of coverage. The present article however is completely unreferenced and has a promotional feel, so it may be better to delete it and for someone without the conflict of interest to start from scratch. --Deskford (talk) 13:00, 13 April 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, czar ♔ 05:56, 20 April 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, czar ♔ 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At AfD, when determining whether or not an article should be kept, one must also look at the salvageability of the article. All issues aside, it is sometimes best to just blow it up and start over. Here, I haven't looked into the notability of the subject too deeply yet, but with the absence of sources, the promotional tone, and the COI, this article appears to be unsalvageable in its current state. And per Deskford, the best course of action may be just to start from scratch. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2014 (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.