- 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like ordinary dictionary definitions of "voice" and "commerce", not helped by reference to website of "Voice Commerce Group" in the first line NawlinWiki 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one voted? Fine, I will. Delete. BoojiBoy 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a dicdef and advertisement--TBCTaLk?!? 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, no sources, no dict, nn. Crum375 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, dicdef, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spamadvertisement. —Khoikhoi 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 09:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. "Transacting?" MEGO. Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Xyrael / 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 17:00, 27 June 2006 (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.