Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabel

=[[Unlabel]]=

:{{la|Unlabel}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unlabel Stats])

:({{Find sources|Unlabel}})

Notability not established, primarily unreliable sources, most of article is unreferenced. Nouniquenames (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The whole thing reads like an WP:Advertisement. I was unable to find any helpful reviews, news articles or other coverage through any of the usual Google searches. I don't believe sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't really make a case for notability even if it were sourced, which it is not, other than a few primary links. I didn't find anything worthwhile in web searches, but happy to revisit if someone does. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacks WP:RS, thus fails WP:GNG. Even if sourced, I don't think that notability can be established as not many notable acts are associated. →TSU tp* 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough to be included. The Determinator p t c 15:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

: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.