Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"monteux west llc"

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 Delete Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "monteux west llc"

Looks like cleverly disguised vanity. You be the judge. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Speculation at best...all very hush hush, better delete it. Rx StrangeLove 19:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline nonsense. Spam for a site with no Alexa ranking. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for shadiness and possible hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 11:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Another VfD that, like many from 20 August, seems to have attracted very little discussion. Relisting in accordance with administrator's guidelines. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Has already had a valid, unanimous VfD. Get on with it, and delete it. -Splash 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm following "When in doubt, don't delete", and note that nobody else had closed it yet although it's been past its lag time for over two days. Do feel free to close it if you are certain that this is a consensus. I have no opinion either way on the article, I haven't looked at it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is fair enough, but those three voters are all established enough for me to be certain that this is a consensus. If I had a delete button, I would exercise it. -Splash 01:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't do vote counts, really. Three or four people who agree about something doesn't really tell me much. More people coming along and agreeing, well that makes me more confident. And of course all the other administrators who looked at that day's listings before me had a chance to declare a consensus but they passed it over and move on to close other discussions. I'm pretty sure we can close now, but I prefer to let someone else do that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too "low-profile" to be verified. URL in article does not lead to this supposed bank. Thatdog 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Elfguy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiable. -- DS1953 01:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dag Nabbit! Vanity! Roodog2k 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. *drew 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-notable, vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Splash --TimPope 08:08, 28 August 2005 (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.