Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3906

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) 06:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N3906

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

Contested nomination for PROD. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a renewal parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. There's no description of "who, what, when, where, why, how" that lifts this to an article status instead of cribbing from an unknown and unreferenced data sheet. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the 2N3906 appears in over 2000 books, including over 400 near the word "popular". Do some work instead of calling for its deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please find a book that tells us something other than "This popular transistor has thus-and-so properties"? How many are/were made each year? Who invented it? What companies still make it? WHy was it thought to be needed, what did it do better than competitive products at the time? I've yet to find a book that actually talks about these devices in any but the most superficial parts-list recital. If they are important to the semiconductor industry, surely there's someone out there who can show the importance? Otherwise, it's just another transistor. Important, valuable - but not notable in the Wikipedia sense of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:28, 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 need for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If those who know about this sort of thing decide to merge similar ones together so be it. Otherwise, let it be. Every new transistor played some significant part in history, new things built, or things made cheaper or more powerful by constant improvements. Dream Focus 08:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. We need reliable sources that show the signficance of the contribution to history of this part. These are generic commodity parts made by many manufacturers and individually have little notability. What is notable, and ought to verifiable in the Wikipedia sense, is teh aggregate contribution low-cost silicon transistors made. That would be an article, a parts catalog tells us nothing about the significance. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 30 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.