Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAM bus

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 redirect to Memory bus. yandman 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAM bus

Page is a thin uncited orphan, duplicative of other entries. Basically, the page has no meaningful content except a list of SDRAM speeds, and little hope of ever having more. Nobody's even cared enough to fix the spelling of "electronical device". Bus (computing) is far more informative, and SDRAM says the rest. My WP:PROD was contested, so I'm doing it more formally with an AfD discussion. I could go on in more detail, but I think it's fairly obvious. Note that this is not the Rambus article, which is actually informative. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This deletion discussion was created by the IP on the article talkpage. I have created a discussion page for him/her. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rambus as a plausible search term. The article creator seems to be using the term to refer to the memory bus, and it may be worth merging some of the information on this article there, but I've never come across anybody else using the term in this way, so I don't think disambiguation is required. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged some of the examples into Memory bus per your suggestion. And added the {{DRAM types}} sidebar. Still neither is very useful. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a common name but it's still a name that both is and was used, both informally and in the literature. (I knew what it was as soon as I read the title.) Build your own multimedia PC (ISBN 9780079122261) has a section entitled "The CPU and the RAM bus" on page 61, for example. I don't think that a disambiguation article is required, for a different reason: Redirecting this to memory bus as an alternative name for the same thing, per Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, seems to be the answer here. One can always use {{redirect}} at the target to disambiguate mis-spellings of Rambus, if necessary.
No deletion is required. And, in fact, 71.41.210.146, you had all of the tools to fix this, since it only required editing the article. It didn't even require the article renaming tool. You have even done the appropriate merger with the tools that you possess. Be bolder!
By the way: There's more to be written on this specific subject that not only isn't in bus (computing) but isn't general enough for that subject. For starters, there's no information about how direct memory access relates to memory buses, no information on address decoding and multiplexed addressing on memory buses, no information on differentiating memory and I/O cycles, no information on data transmission on memory buses, and no information on memory refresh and how it relates to memory buses. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there couldn't be a good article on the subject, just that there isn't one, and what is there is singularly useless. I've been picking away at the general area (my current project is to merge CAS latency, Memory latency and SDRAM latency; anyone want to help with that?), but am not inspired to write about RAM bus. Judging by the edit history, nobody else is, either. So get rid of the thing in the meantime. But yes, when I proposed this, I didn't even know about Memory bus, and redirecting there seems reasonable. I'll leave it unmodified for a few more days of debate, and if nothing more comes up, I'll do the redirect and add . And yes, I know about [[WP:BB]; see the edit log for Template:Cleanup-reorganize. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get rid of things because editors are not inspired to write, nor because they are incomplete. See our Wikipedia:Editing policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Perfection ab initio is not required. There is no deadline. And vast areas of the encyclopaedia are currently incomplete, even after all these years. If something can be solved even with the tools that editors without accounts have (let alone the tools that editors with accounts have), a deletion nomination isn't the way to go. The simple truth is that most of our content is written by editors without accounts, sometimes incrementally, and many problems require no more than the tools that such editors all possess to fix. I already saw the other articles that you've been working on. Keep contributing. One suggestion: If you want to not tell people about yourself or protect your privacy, creating an account actually gives you more privacy and reveals less information, as well as provides several extra tools. (This is a point that I didn't fully appreciate myself for a long while before I created my first account, so I pass it on.) Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to agree that redirecting this to memory bus would probably be a more appropriate move. Matt (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to memory bus; I agree that this is a duplicate article under a less common name that is better covered at "memory bus". – 74 01:04, 5 March 2009 (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.