Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N2907

:{{la|2N2907}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|2N2907}})

Contested nomination for PROD. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog. No assertion of notability of this particular tiny part. This is a parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. There's no "who", "what", "when", "where", "why" or "how" details, just a bald recitation of facts from an (unknown and unreferenced) data sheet. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - a quick look at book verifies that this is one the most popular transistor types of all time. I added a book ref with quote to show that notability. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and please stop nominating all of these. If this transistor was that popular, then it would obviously be covered at its time in all the magazines that cover things like this. Dream Focus 04:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• 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) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

*SpeedyKeep  I'm not convinced by the due diligence presentation that nominator has done any research on this part.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator I clicked on "scholar" above and after excluding patents (which are parts list mentions), I see 197 hits. This drops to 147 hits if I put in "-Q1" in the search, which excludes lots of parts list type mentions in passing. Nothing shows up with "2N2907" in the title, but lots of studies on damaging semiconductors with radiation, and a thesis on making electricity from a shoe. Is the part's total banality itself notable? Just because a part number gets mentioned, doesn't mean it's getting in-depth coverage. If I could find "The 2N2907: How it was designed", I'd be less inclined for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• You have excellent ELs (Transistor Museum) for the 2N2222 and how that design and its geometry was developed. Yet you're still !voting to delete that article, certainly not doing any of the content writing from those sources that would make the article into what you say that you want. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

::I'm removing the speedykeep as a courtesy and as appropriate for a sincere response that invalidates my !vote, not because I believe that the response is sufficient as a due diligence effort to bring an article to AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the article now, most of it isn't even about the 2N2907. If it's in another package, it's not a 2N2907, it's another part! If it has a different JEDEC number, it's another part! There's also a bunch of lies, such as it working up to 100 MHZ - nobody can use a 2N2907 at 100 MHZ, you've confused the Ft specification with the actual performance of the part. But do we know who first made it, when it was introduced, why it was thoght to be a desirable addition to someone's product line, how it compares to other transistors of the era? How many were/are sold? What was made possible by the 2N2907 that never existed before? Was it the first/last/biggest/smallest/most powerful of its kind? Is there anything notable about it? Please? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• If the problem is that the article now covers several closely related parts, that's easy to fix with a move. I thought you didn't like articles about individual parts... Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The same transistor" can easily have multiple JEDEC numbers, if the same semiconductor is placed in different packages. They may even have different ratings, as their thermally limited performance is likely to differ. We would likely also list the PNP/NPN complementary pairs together, and if (as here) there's a genuinely related transistor that was designed as a related series from the outset. The risk is in bundling unrelated transistors together, just because a few numbers from their application specs would put them into the same parts bin on the workshop shelf. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• See, that's the sort of information that should be in an article. The same transistor die can be in different packages and have different ratings as a result; this explains why the Binford 6100 in the welded hermetic MIL-SPEC ceramic aerospace package dissipates 5 watts, whereas the Binford 6101 with the same die in the inexpenive waxed balsawood package is only rated 0.5 watts. But we should explain that in an section called "Transistor packaging" in an article "Silicon transistor development" with illustrations of particular design issues and how they were solved ilustrated by our favorite parts. That's why articles on individual parts are useless - they give no context. It's like the trainspotter saying "There goes No. 1701" without caring about how a railway runs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep—The transistor is considered by some to be the most important invention of the 20th century, so I don't think it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to have articles about the most common types. There is plenty of independent coverage available for this transistor, so it appears notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Considered...but by who? Who's writing about it? Damn it, I'm going to have to speak to the Abbot; the monestary library here is evidently missing a subscription to "Most Popular Transistors Monthly". It's a spare part! It's not an encyclopedia topic! --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.