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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deafax[edit]

Deafax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page source reads "All information has been freely given by Deafax please e-mail for verification info@deafax.org". I think this page was written by a Deafax employee. Only one spurious source and no claim to notability. Shii (tock) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is almost like an advertisement. Lists no sources. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Looks like an ad. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of my HI resources have scraped up anything to source. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does important research on deaf technologies. Karenonthames (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above is user's only edit.—Chowbok ☠ 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent media mentions that I can find, Google News Search turns up empty.—Chowbok ☠ 04:06, 16 March 2008 (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.