- 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. Marskell 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of using a magic 8-ball, which Wikipedia is not, as a basis to write an article. Contested prod. MER-C 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It might be worth an article when (if) it's developed and comes to market, but this is way premature. BTLizard 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wait until verifiable sources are available until creation. Adambro 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand This is yet another of those off-the-beaten-path technologies that quite well may end up making an impact on the market (ala VCD). As "teradisk" more than 1000 unique references on google (mostly in Chinese), as "teradisc" over 60,000 unique references, mostly in German and Chinese. It's quite real. Needs an "in development" tag and serious expansion 'though. -- Lostinlodos 08:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete TeraDisc capability of storing up to one TeraByte (TB) of data makes this technology very notable. However, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:04, 25 April 2007 (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.