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. Big Dom 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N2222[edit]

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

Aside from rather narrow discussion within the world of electronics, no notability as per the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog and every singel semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia may have indefintely expandable storage space but editor time is a finite resource. Suggest integrate with Transistor instead of having a parts catalog entry for every device. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a contested nomination for PROD --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a BJT, why do you say integrate with transistor? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the large number of references imply there is plenty to be said about the device. The article lists more than just catalog information - it talks about its use in circuits, its common nature as a learning tool, and so on. If all that could be said about a part is basic characteristics, the argument would apply that wikipedia is not a directory, but this one has more than that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See also WP:Articles for deletion/2N3055. Nominator seems to be bulk-listing the transistor articles named by part number, on the grounds that items listed by number are clearly WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I found this one by typing in the part numbers of the half-dozen best-known transistors I could think of, and sure enough, there it was slated for deletion.

Should we next delete astatine, because we already have an article on halogens and although chlorine and iodine are pretty well known, the obscure elements are only listed in what we can describe as standard reference lists (which evidently don't convey notability). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is about the article 2N2222. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to a "List of commonly used transistors." A well known and very commonly used cheap silicon transistor, but I did not find reliable sources with significant coverage of this transistor beyond showing it used in various circuits. Example "Common NPN signal transistors are the 2N2222 and the 2N3904. Both kinds are available in bulk packages of 10 for about $1." in [1]. [2] called it "a very common transistor." [3] called it "the popular 2n2222." [4] called it "a commonly used transistor." Not really "significant coverage," but support for its appearance in a list of "commonly used transistors," for the past several decades. It is one of a handful that every electronics designer and hobbyist is likely to know by heart. Edison (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2N3904 is also listed for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3904. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly used transistors sounds like a useful article, but in-depth coverage of them really warrants individual articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: In-depth coverage would be interesting in a narrow obsessive train-spotter's sense, but since it's not verifiable (no references), it will never be part of the encyclopedia. All we know about the 2N2222 is published characteristics, which is trivial dimensional data and doesn't do a thing to explain why this product was necessary, who invented it, when it was invented, how it was developed, what share it had in the industry, what has replaced it...you know, encyclopedia stuff you can't get from the Digi Key catalog. It's never going to happen and so the article is doomed to be stunted and stillborn; better it should be removed and people spend their editing time on things that can be researched and developed into useful articles. ( I'm surprised some Wiki slacktivist hasn't come along to add this article to Project Physics and Project United States! ) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "trivial dimensional data" belongs in the article (along with the atomic mass of astatine), but I agree that it is indeed trivial.

The point about this transistor, and the IN4001 and the 2N3055, are their widespread use over a long period, in a wide range of applications. That isn't referenced from the data sheets, it comes from their use in the ubiquitous NAD3020 amplifier, their regular coverage in E&WW, their use as exemplars in Horowitz & Hill, the fact that we all had drawerfuls of these particular parts, rather than the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Nuclear EMP: failure threshold and resistance of the protected and unprotected 2N2222 transistor in the short pulse width regime" suggests there is more than just entries in a parts catalogue. As does "Experimental Investigations of Second Breakdown and Noise in 2N2222 Transistors"; etc. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Dingly and 65.93.12.101 SpinningSpark 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have found it gets adequate coverage. Dream Focus 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for "The Most Successful and Widely Used Transistor Ever Developed!." I've added a bunch of sources to clarify how notable it is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Clearly satisfies the GNG.—RJH (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archetypical transistor; the "go-to" small-signal NPN silicon BJT. popularity well referenced. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:25, 1 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.