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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1N540X[edit]

1N540X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of general notability of this series of tiny electronic parts. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog or semiconductor cross-reference guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete - This one should have been allowed to be deleted via PROD. Agree there is no assertion of notability, nor apparently any notability at all. Good subject for cleanup. — Becksguy (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - combine with its more notable cousin 1N400X; they are all treated in the same table in this book, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of interest: where can I learn about the ranked notability of semiconductor devices? This would be a great help in the current discussions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just close it we could get on with changing it to a redirect, now that its contents have been merged per my proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to an appropriate target (a merge seems to have already been done). No indicators of notability outside of being on lists of parts.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like it fails the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Wikipedia is not an electronic parts catalogue. This does not appear to pass the GNG. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the page that it has already been merged with: 1N400X. I would have done this already, but with the AfD tag on it, it seemed to be not doable. A separate question will be whether to rename the merged article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for the moment, anyway. Are the GNG satisfied? Definitely - they are for the vast majority of common electronic components. A listing in an equivalents handbook fulfills the notability requirements - significant, reliable & independent. Indeed, since the whole purpose of equivalents books is to compare and contrast components with each other (often it becomes what other component would be suitable for a given job, rather than what is a direct substitute) there is a certain amount of depth there. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going way too far with that interpretation that makes just about every part number notable. These diodes needs to be covered, as they're popular and discussed in a lot of places, but just being in an equivalents list is not a good reason. What's your opinion on covering them in 1N400X, as I merged it (and moving to a better name)? Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read through WP:N with an equivalents handbook in mind:

Is it significant? Well, it deals with the listed component directly and the good ones provide details of basic parameters for the device. Listing equivalents is fundamentally a comparative analysis for each listed entry. If we look at what would be a fairly typical entry for a given component then after the basic parameters we may see something like:

ABC123; ABC124; IJK100 (to 1MHz); XYZ99 (to 50V).

That's a very terse description to save space but it contains a lot of analysis: the ABC123 & ABC124 are drop-in substitutes. The IJK100 may function as a replacement for a given application but only if is is operating at a frequency of less than 1MHz. The XYZ99 may also be a suitable replacement provided the the voltage is under 50V. Presumably the operating limits of the component listed are higher in both of those respects. Note that nothing precludes coverage in tabular form or requires a certain length of coverage: it is the content that matters. Therefore nothing at N precludes the listing from counting as significant.

Is is reliable? An equivalents book is a functional thing: no-one would trust it if it was not reliable. Publishers make great efforts to ensure accuracy and are usually independent of the component manufacturers. The independent listings generally have no hint of bias and will list any suitable device, regardless of e.g. manufacturer.

Sources An independently published guide qualifies as a secondary source in regards the devices it lists.

Is it independent? As touched upon at reliability, most guides are from independent publishers. There are on the other hand a few single-manufacturer listings, usually distributed by the manufacturers themselves. We may have issues with those on this criterion but not the independent handbooks.

I don't consider that allowing an equivalents listing does set the bar particularly low. It is simply in the very nature of an equivalents guide to be comprehensive when considering large numbers of components - it is the equivalents guide hitting what we need square on the head, rather than letting just anything go. I share the concern that this would allow huge numbers of components to go through but that is the way N is written at the moment. That is what I have been saying all along: we need general principles first rather than a piecemeal approach that makes for an inconsistent mess.

If you consider the whole gamut of electronics components as a notability spectrum, you have e.g. 21K 0.5W metal film resistor at one end and Intel 80386 at the other. Between them perhaps in the middle you have a few widely discussed special-purpose chips - NE555 and MAX232 would be examples that I'd argue retaining are no-brainers. Beneath those you have the individual discrete components like the 1N540x series we are discussing here. Most of these probably do need weeding but policy as it exists now makes most of them notable simply because of the available references. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2011 (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.