Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDR5 SDRAM


 * 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 - already done as a part of the discussion. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

DDR5 SDRAM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be misinformed - there is no such thing as DDR5. Looking at the sources given:
 * Derzapf, Evgenij (2012). Parallel Mesh Processing (Ph.D.). Philipps-Universität Marburg. DDR5 is mentioned once, and is fairly ovbiously a reference to the totally different GDDR5.
 * 13/222,938 US application US 13/222,938, Stuart Allen Berke, "Memory compatibility system and method", published 2014-01-28, assigned to Dell Products L.P.: dead link
 * Patent No. 8,493,116 US patent U.S. Patent No. 8,493,116, Jong-ryun Choi & Suho Kim, "Clock delay circuit and delay locked loop including the same.", published 2013-07-23, assigned to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, Yonsei University: Dead link
 * MX35 Applications Processors for Automotive Products, Freescale Semiconductor Datasheet Document Number MCIMX35SR2AEC, 2010-09-27, p. 51, retrieved 2014-08-06: While there is a position on a drawing named DDR5, is is fairly obviously not a new SDRAM standard.

I have designed a small CPU when I studied computer science, and the text in the current Wikipedia article makes no sense. You do no use a new DRAM memory standard to support parallel matrix operations. And making DDR5 compatible with DDR2 through a riser card is insanity, since DDR2 is many years old and obsolete. And and and... Thue (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is completely unsourced and also conflicting with WP:CRYSTALBALL; out of three online sources, two are dead links and a search for those patents resulted in one of them actually describing additional memory emulation logic and mentioning DDR5 only as a hypothetical new memory standard, while the other seems to be only mentioning DDR5 by mistake instead of DDR4 as an example of SDRAM memory type. As already explained above, the third online source isn't about DDR5 –  that hardware platform uses DDR2 memory while "DDR5" is used for positions on timing diagrams (not a great choice for IDs, by the way). &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have created DDR4 SDRAM; I suggest that we redirect DDR5 there, since DDR5 is a natural search term for people looking for information about any sucessor to DDR4. Thue (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. Went ahead and WP:BOLDly turned the article  to, what might be slightly against WP:EDITATAFD but it's so misleading that we simply shouldn't wait for the AfD outcome. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. As long as there are nobody actually opposing it and it makes Wikipedia better, I see no reason to follow the rules mindlessly to the letter for the rules own sake. I wish more Wikipedia editors would understand that :(.Thue (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Could an Admin close this please It seems to have been dealt with. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , would you be willing to withdraw this nomination and close it, please, what would be in accordance with WP:WDAFD? We've already turned the article into a redirect, so there's no longer any point in deleting it; with a withdrawn nomination we'd also be able to delete the AfD notice from the redirect itself. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts what are Non Admin Closures for? Neonchameleon (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.