Talk:RAM card

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by Keresluna (talk · contribs) on 5 December 2023.

I am not sure if this site (complete with unrelated ads that make you go hmm) is a good-enough quality source for Wikipedia, but it does contain PLENTY of technical information on period RAM cards (i.e. actual ISA RAM cards from back in the day when those really were a thing – if not your only option with your IBM 5150/5160). On the plus side, this source does provide proof many vendors called þe olde RAM cards memory cards, like that other user's redirect suggested (see article history). Perhaps hatnotes (both ways?) might be in order, so long as confusion between volatile and non-volatile memory can be avoided? Actually, are there any {{CURRENTYEAR}} SD, etc. memory cards that are volatile (i.e. NOT non-volatile)? I don't even know. If such products are available, they might add to the confusion. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert the addition of the proposed deletion box, for the following reasons:

• The deletion was proposed by the same editor who tried to delete the information in the article by turning it into a redirect to a confusingly similarly-named but essentially different topic. See the article history and my rv with response therein.
• Assuming that first very quick-fire content removal was initially done in good faith, one would then at least have to conclude that the editor in question does not understand the subject matter, to wit: the difference between volatile and non-volatile memory in general, or between modern flash RAM-based memory cards and early PC-era RAM cards in particular. I know many people love to play policeman, but perhaps people should be careful in trying to police that which they do not understand, and carefully consider the question whether—if there is anything to be policed at all—maybe a subject matter-competent editor might be better qualified to play constable in the case in question.
• That first attempt to trash this article by turning it into a redirect to an essentially different topic was very hasty. The virtual ink on this article's first stub was barely dry, and on the evidence of what was done and how quickly it was done, it would seem questionable at best that the editor who did it even took the time to read and understand (much less double-check and research) the information they were in a big hurry trying to make disappear for some reason.
• The Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy says (emphasis added): "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."
• In light of the above, it is Wednesbury unreasonable to think no opposition to the deletion was to be expected.
• The PROD proposal was also, once again, made very quickly.
• So in summary, the pattern here was:

1. Attempt to memory-hole the article content by off-topic redirectification,
2. rv by yours truly, with explanation in the history and further attempts to work on this article, to include the suggestion of a reference on the talk page,
3. swift PROD nomination by the attempted memory-holer, which due to its speed and it's "if not this, then that"-nature feels somewhat retaliatory.

I note that the PROD process, while obviously unsuitable here and not defensible as good-faith, has the possibly perceived "advantage" of not opening up a clear forum for discussion for all to see. The editor in question did leave a message on my Talk page, but I find it hard to read that as a genuine attempt at public discussion. It does however provide compelling proof they knew opposition was to be expected. Ironically, the only non-boilerplate part of that Talk page message betrayed yet further editor confusion on a point I had just made an edit to the article about – which again they must not have read.
Having already gotten too far into something that at least to yours truly feels pretty edit war-ish, it would have been very easy for an ostensibly experienced editor to simply trust the wiki system and let someone else be the judge, go hands-off and walk away. And I think that's what I'll do here. What have I learned? I wondered why there wasn't already an article on this topic, or on multifunction cards (Dated? Yes. Niche? Not so.), but now I think I know: Getting perfectly cromulent contributions past quick-fire "reviewers" (who don't) feels positively aggravating. That must be why. The worst thing is, I've already started a multifunction cards article in another tab. And now I don't know if I even want to submit what I've got there. Maybe just fire and forget. Take it or leave it.
...oh, and—in my best Columbo or Jobs impression—one more thing: If someone knows of some way this article could be contextualised or categorised as 1980s through 1990s turn-of-the-decade PC tech, which is probably when these things peaked, that could be a good thing. Knowing that might also help in the hunt for pre-WWW sources. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A public discussion as been opened at WP:Articles for deletion/RAM card. I apologize for PRODing the article improperly, but I still think that the article does not Wikpedia's notability guidelines. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a supporter of this article in principle. This was a thing, back in the day. But where are the sources?

I've done a bit of searching, and the Byte Magazine collection on archive.org has a lot of mentions but usually as a specification on another system or in some kind of ad. There are also a few mentions in respect of Amiga and Apple systems. This book[1] has a tiny mention.

With a tiny bit of improvement it could be a keep, but to survive AfD it needs to have sources. I'm prepared to stick my neck out on this one a little bit but not as it stands right now. Oblivy (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PC Magazine December 25, 1984, pages 112 to 139 has detailed reviews and technical discussions of multifunction cards, some of which are RAM cards. Full text of that issue is available on google books. There are more reviews from PC Magazine November 1982 pp 245 to 254. Also available from Google Books. Both those articles provide specific product names that can fuel google searches for more resources. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]