Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JEDEC memory standards[edit]

Not notable; Article centered on a small subset of a definitions section of a standard, apparently only to reinforce the creators in an everlasting Wikipedia Manual of Style debate SLi (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, I believe the authors have quite heavily interpreted the document to mandate the use of non-IEC prefixes (which I obviously dispute), even as IEC prefixes are clearly mentioned in the standards document.

If there's any doubt that this article was created merely as a response to a WP:MOSNUM dispute, please search the debate archives (especially Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive_B11 and all /Archive/B?? pages for ?? < 11) for "JEDEC" to see the bashing. In any case, I doubt that an article like this that writes about a single tiny aspect of a frigging term definition in a standard is notable, unless there has been significant publishing done on this very aspect of the standard (only) outside Wikipedia. --SLi (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditionally keep~~. What information is in the article seems to be factual. More important, the information is clearly less trivial than—for instance—articles dedicated to individual episodes of The Simpsons. For me, the important objection cited in nominating the article for deletion is that it discusses only a “small subset of definitions of a standard.” This shortcoming—if true—*might* be able to be rectified by disclosing that fact in the article so that readers don’t think the entire scope of the JEDEC Standard 21 is limited to what is discussed in the article. For me, the salient questions is this: is the ‘meat and potatoes’ of JEDEC Standard 21 intending to address the meaning of prefixes like “kilobyte”, “megabyte”, etc.(?) and the rest of the standard is relatively less significant housecleaning? If the nominator can provide additional information on the other terms covered by JEDEC Standard 21, then a more informed decision can be made here. I think the key litmus test should be whether or not the article is misleadingly overly focused; that is to say, does it accurately describe an important and significant section of the standard, or just a truly minor subsection. Greg L (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I had to check what the standard is actually about. Here's a description of the document JESD 21-C from [JEDEC catalogue]. It only seems to tell what the revision is about, but it does give a good hint of the subject matter. FWIW, the name of the standard is "Configurations for solid state memories".

This revision of JESD21 is substantially different from previous issues because it reflects advancement in semiconductor technology and computer design needs. A new class of memory devices, the multiport DRAM (MPDRAM) C also know as 'Video Ram' because of the most common application for the devices C is represented. A new family of SRAMs which addresses the increasing need for high speed is introduced. Additional families of devices in the SOJ and Zip packages are included. The material in this revision is organized primarily by function (ROM, EPROM, SRAM, DRAM, etc.) rather than by technology and word length. Pinouts for SIMM and DIMM are included along with presence detect schemes. A current set of terms has also been included. JESD21-C is a compilation of all memory device standards that have been developed by the JC-42 Committee and approved by the JEDEC BoD from September 1989 to present. This latest issue has changed to a loose-leaf format and comes in a three-ring binder so that new drawings can be added without requiring a new publication. Time of publication of the material is identified by release number, i.e., if marked Release 8, this item was approved and released in 1998, if marked Release 13, this item was approved and released in 2003.

--SLi (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Very) Conditionally keep~~ Thank you SLi. Judging from the article, I never would have imagined that JESD 21-C covered so much ground. The article fails WP:Undue weight, and is therefore not up to Wikipedia standards. I would argue that the proper remedies in this situation are any of the following three options:

For a volunteer to step up to the plate and expand the article “JEDEC memory standards” to properly describe the full scope of JESD 21-C and to do so before the disposition of this nomination for deletion; that is, expanding the article is a prerequisite to allowing it to stay; which is to say, it is an Expand and keep rather than a Keep and expand, or,
Move the article (and provide a redirect for old links) to one with a new article title that is properly descriptive of how it covers just a subsection of JESD 21-C; e.g.: “JESD 21-C, Subpart IV”, which would properly address WP:Undue weight, or,
Delete the article.

My strong preference would be either option #1 or #2, above—each is perfectly fine with me. Option #2 has the virtue of requiring the least effort. Option #3, I think, is unnecessary but is preferable to the status quo. Unfortunately, options #1 and #2 requires the attention of someone with access to the standard. I will contact SWTPC6800 on this. Since he was the first major contributor, it appears he might have such access. If so, it should be trivial for him to move (rename) the article to one with a more descriptive title. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the documents would be reference 5 in the actual article (pdf). It might be worth taking a look at the other references too. That's a terms and definitions chapter/whatever, and even if the subject matter was only that document, I think separating the prefix issue from it would be undue weight. The document is reference material and mostly does not talk about the IEC/non-IEC prefix issue. --SLi (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Looking at reference 5 makes it clear that no amount of renaming the article would resolve issues with WP:Undue weight. To be compliant with WP:UNDO, the article title would have to be “JESD 21-C, One backwater little entry in the glossary regarding binary prefixes”. It was a worthwhile tool for battling Wikipedia’s absurd practice of being the only general-interest publication on the planet to use the IEC prefixes (and in a routine “oh… didn’t-cha know?” fashion). But it shouldn’t have ever been in article-space. Furthermore, the first major contributor is not interested in trying to address this shortcoming in the article (I wouldn’t blame him). It should be considered, IMO, as abandoned and broken. Greg L (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete While apparently factual this article describes a minor subsection of one of many JEDEC publications relating to memory. By my count there are 436 publications listed at the JEDEC site and I gave up counting the number related to memory. Clearly this article is incomplete and therefore inappropriately overemphasizes the binary prefix issue. Most if not all of what is here is also in the MOSSUM discussion where it is appropriate. Tom94022 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Integrated circuit memory is arguably one of the great inventions in human history. Mundane standardization efforts devoted to pin configurations, voltage requirements, timing and the like are an important part of the story. There is no question that JEDEC memory standardization efforts are notable. They helped enable robust competition in the market and arguably played a role in its rapid progress. No doubt there is more to be said on the topic, but an article falling short in covering its subject is not basis for deletion. Also, the MOSNUM discussion is in talk space and content there in no way makes content in article space duplicative. Improve the article, don't delete it.--agr (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (and cleanup as well). The JEDEC standards are of extreme historical importance, and many are still used. That some did not like how the IEC prefix war turned out is no reason to delete this article. That being said, the current version is in a sorry state, and could use a lot of cleanup, and be expanded to cover the other major parts (dealing with speeds, etc). Could be moved to something like JEDEC Standard 100B.01 and JEDEC Standard 21-C or similar if these are worth individual articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. The section of this article that is actually about memory standards is worth keeping. It should have a list of JEDEC standardized memory types (which, I believe, includes DDR SDRAM, DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR). It shouldn't have a huge quantity of description of why JEDEC has decided not to use kibibytes etc in their descriptions of memory sizes, as that is an entirely different topic, which may be worth merging to binary prefix. JulesH (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Tom94022 suggests but does not spell out, this is a blatantly obvious case of undue weight, not to mention wikipoliticking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of which issues can be fixed without deleting the article, just by trimming the inappropriate content as I suggest above. JulesH (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is notable because most memory chip producers use the standard. No memory chip producer expresses their product with the IEC prefixes. Not using IEC prefixes is correct according to existing Wikipedia policy because hardly anybody else uses IEC. If SLi wants to try to claim JEDEC is "not notable" then SLi would also need to remove all references to IEC prefixes because IEC is even more of "a single tiny aspect of a frigging term definition". Given that IEC prefixes is muchy less used than other standards. Glider87 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SMcCandlish appears to be confused because WP:UNDUE does not apply to the JEDEC memory standards since the JEDEC standards are notable and commonly used. WP:UNUDE does apply to the promotion of IEC prefixes though. I can see how removing this article would be the first step in trying to promote IEC prefixes by removing any material that described the current situation where IEC prefixes are not used. In that case calling for this article to be removed is wikipoliticking and pointy [1] by causing the omission of a relevant widely referenced topic like the JEDEC memory standards. Glider87 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you got that right. I think the prefix issue fails notability if you can't find a single reliable source that discusses specifically the prefix issue in that document. In fact there is serious disagreement on whether the standard says that the non-IEC prefixes should be used. User:Matt Britt actually asked for a clarification of the issue from JEDEC, and received a reply very clearly stating JEDEC does not mandate the use of non-IEC prefixes. The contrary interpretation is just trying to read something into the standards that is not there.

For any of this to be notable enough to warrant inclusion of "binary prefixes in JEDEC standards" in Wikipedia, I believe you would have to find a source discussing just that issue, not just decide to focus on that part of the document because you happen to like what you think it says.

Unfortunately the tone of the discussion drove almost everyone interested away way back at the latest in 2007 as I pointed out back then -- including, I now see, User:Matt Britt (who for that reason is no longer active) and me, and I'm sure a zillion other people who once were interested of the issue but didn't want to take the bickering. In fact I think it's no wonder you don't have but a few people arguing about it any more since most were driven away years ago. Not that I have any willingness at all to revisit the issue, just so you know I don't think the current "consensus" in the IEC prefix in Wikipedia issue was reached by anything other than outright harassment, but I really don't care enough to return to that discussion since it's obvious from the recent discussion that it's just as hostile.

But for this article the important point is that I don't think the issues discussed are notable unless you can find a source which writes about them quite specifically, and that what the currently used source means is actually disputed too. --SLi (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the archive link you provided and it doesn't support your claims and actually does harm to your case. The claimed clarification of the issue actually doesn't clarify it at all and is contrary to the statements made in the standards documentation. I note Matt Britt is someone who was promoting IEC prefixes, also to find a claim without any reliable evidence that supports his point of view which is contrary to already existing evidence is at best unreliable and unusable. The statements in the standards documentation do support the statements made on the JEDEC memory standards page, to claim the contrary is ignoring the evidence cited from reliable sources. So when you wrote "The contrary interpretation is just trying to read something into the standards that is not there" that statement is already shown to be incorrect according to the reliable sources used on the page. As for "bickering" upon reading the article I see you insulting other people when they correctly point out why your point of view is incorrect. So not only is your point of view unsupported you attack others who demonstrate why. That's why posting the link does harm to your case. The "harassment" you speak of, I witnessed first hand the large amount of harassment being caused by Thunderbird2 to other people because I posted a link to the talk page earlier which shows Thunderbird2 getting very close to being banned for repeatedly misrepresenting others and being pointy. From reading the archives with fresh eyes most of the harassment and bickering seems to have come from those wanting to support IEC prefixes who then claim to have gone away when their pleadings are rejected by consensus. Given your historical supporting of IEC and given your biased comments on this page I have to say that justification of deleting a page is not because you don't want to believe something. You claimed the topic is not notable but obviously it is because the memory chips produced by manufacturers will often reference the JEDEC standard. You also don't have it right because "the use of non-IEC prefixes" is mandated by Wikipedia because of WP:UNDUE and not the other way around as you first claimed. This is because WP:UNDUE applies to IEC prefixes, read the comments from Gwen Gale on Thunderbird2's talk page about why it is pointy to ignore that consensus. Glider87 (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Wikipedia using or not using IEC prefixes, I'm talking about this article. And specifically, I don't think the interpretation that it "mandates" non-IEC prefixes is correct given the footnote that very explicitly says IEC prefixes are an "alternative" and not mentioning anything to the effect that they should not be used (and note that I'm still not talking about Wikipedia using or not using them):

The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." Further confusion results from the popular use of a "megabyte" consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the familiar "1.44-MB" diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2. --SLi (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading "alternative" and thinking that means "alternative that can be used according to the standard" which is an interpretation of the standards document that is not correct. I asked the JEDEC "Can I market a memory chip using IEC prefixes and claim to be in conformance with the document here?" and the answer was "No. Only use the terms kilo, mega and giga as described.". This answer contradicts your point of view. If your point of view is correct then you should be able to show a memory chip maker who uses IEC prefixes in their technical documentation and who claims conformance with the JEDEC standards document. You have not produced any evidence like that and the reason is because the standard does not allow IEC prefixes to be used. Glider87 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been no good reasons given to remove the page and stronger arguments made for keeping the page. This AfD is yet another example of a vocal minority trying to fight against very established Wikipedia guidelines and policies but failing to provide any good arguments for changing those guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is very clear on this, minority points of view that have very little adoption in the real world do not have as much weight as points of view that are widely used in the real world. Fnag aton 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAK. This has absolutely zero to do with the IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue. --SLi (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you made it a "IEC prefix on Wikipedia" issue by referencing in your second and third edits to this page the subjects of WP:MOSNUM and its talk archives and how you think this article "was created merely as a response to a WP:MOSNUM dispute". So you're wrong unless you strike and retract anything to do with MOSNUM that you have written on this page. Fnag aton 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I have the power to make this a IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue? The issue is notability, that's policy, and it cannot be nullified by whatever I reference anywhere. I could not make this a IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue even if I wanted. Articles just must adhere with the policy whether you like it or not. --SLi (talk) 17:55, 9 April 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.