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. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TIP31[edit]

TIP31 (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 nomination for PROD. 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 single semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia may have indefinitely 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) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whilst agreeing the general point "every single semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles.", this (and some of the nom's other AfDs) are those that make the cut for being notable in their own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator If they are notable, then there are WP:RS showing their notability. It's only been tagged as unreferenced for 4 years...--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears in over 300 books. That's more notable than your congressional representative, I bet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list one book that covers the TIP31 in some depth, other than a parts list description and an observation that this is a really neat transistor. Ideally we'd like to know who invented this transistor, when it was first manufactured, why it was thought to be needed, what it did better than competitive transistors, how was it important to the products of the time, what has since replaced it - you know, about the same level of information we'd expect in a human biography or the level of coverage we'd expect from a garage band that was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It's hard to believe, but my district doesn't get to send nyone to Congress. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I'd like to see too, and for this transistor (also the 2N3055, OC71 and a few others) that sort of detail should be possible to achieve. We do not (should not) delete articles because they're currently incomplete within this scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:35, 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) 23:49, 28 March 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.