Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of storage devices

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. Sandstein 08:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of storage devices

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page reads like a poorly researched elementary school report on digital media. It is not properly referenced, it does not accurately reflect the history of digital media, the writing is vague and confusing and much of the information is incorrect. Niimarra (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This also pretty much redundant to the article on Moore's Law Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important, interesting and sufficiently sourced subject. Moore's law is something obviously different, remotely related to the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems redundant as a topic, but could it be merged with Data storage device which is very short? I'm not convinced that the evolution is a notable topic separate from data storage: timeline articles are valid, but this isn't a timeline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it reads like original research/synthesis. Not a bad effort, and some of it is salvageable, but it's better to wipe and start again in the proper mindset. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2017 (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.