- 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 keep - no consensus. FireFox 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet any notability requirements in WP:CORP, and is chock full o' vanity. Colonel Tom 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For what it's worth, I edited it into what I thought was a pretty decent NPOV stub, before the vanity press was added back in, but I agree that it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 16:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Tim Pierce. Stifle 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep; this rings a bell as something I've seen in the notes of quite a few CDs, mainly (IIRC) with reference to remastering. Fourohfour 16:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This does seem notable to me, and after the edits, it's really not that bad. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Advanced Technology Attachment, which discusses master and slave disks and drives. Blackcats 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But this doesn't have anything to do with master/slave, this is a company name. And even assuming the company is non-notable, I can't imagine someone searching for "master hard drive" who thinks it's one word: masterdisk. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:32, 14 December 2005 (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.