Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch

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 of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ill Mitch

Strong Delete vanity, inanity, hoax, intentional self promotion per his website and per the text of this article ("Fans of Ill Mitch can join his promotional group called the "Spread Team"). Yeah..... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICdoktorb | words 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is so bad my brain refuses to take it seriously. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lots of google hits, but after paging through a bunch of them, they all seem self-generated ... no evidence that this article meets WP:BAND or the proposed criteria WP:MEME BigDT 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, vanity, self promotion. --Terence Ong 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above —Mets501^talk 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Near Speedy Delete claims notability, but it is poor Computerjoe's talk 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity article, doesn't seem notable. JIP | Talk 08:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to fall under the criteria of WP:BIO.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another "internet phenomenon" with a few blog mentions. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. - Motor (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — Jun. 7, '06 [11:59] <freak|talk>
• Delete per above. Molerat 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsustainable for WP:BIO. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although the article fails to fall under the criteria of WP:BIO, this should not be a valid reason to delete this. The reason why I feel that the article needs to be deleted is because it is an obvious vanity page. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be proven. —EdGl 22:20, 7 June 2006 (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.