Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mez

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. Der yck C. 00:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

King Mez (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats )

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

Possibly unotable, unsourced blp. Surprisingly has been in a sandbox all these years till now it seems. Wgolf (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete per nom - Seems more promo imho, Anyway no evidence of notability, –Davey2010 ^Talk 21:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• comment-Interesting how this article has been edited for the past 5 years by different people yet has never became a actual article till now. Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete per nom - Though he shows up in google, it's only various music-dump style pages that feature him. No news, no notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, non-notable. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 7 March 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.