Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N7000

: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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[2N7000]]=

:{{la|2N7000}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|2N7000}})

Contested nomination for PROD. No referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. No "who", "what", "when", "where", "how" or "why" information, just quotes from data sheet. Possibly merge to Transistor but not an article as it stands now. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep for what Modern Electronics calls "absolutely ideal hacker parts". Plenty of sources are available by following the links above. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:33, 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) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete The recent merge with an unrelated transistor has lost any vaue this article might have had. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The two articles each referred to the other and said they were the same device in different packages; if that's not the case, a revert would solve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If the article said that beforehand, it wasn't worth saving. If it was changed to say that, then there's little hope for any article once ARS and the Legions of the Keen'n'Clueless get to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Try to avoid personal attacks. Articles are kept based on the arguments presented, not how many people show up. Although it is easier to get something deleted if no one else is around to notice. Dream Focus 13:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • AGF and accusations of personal attacks work both ways, DreamFocus--suggesting a conspiracy theory does not become you. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 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 08:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator This has to be verifiable. We need reliable sources that say part X played a role in history. These are commodity parts and individually not notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Didn't Dicklyon find proof it was notable? Dream Focus 13:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Notability requires multiple, signficant, idedpendent, reliable sources. The Google snippet doesn't show how much of the magazine article is about the 2N7000 or something else. Clicking on Google Scholar above and excluding patents, and excluding "Q1", gives 99 hits. The ones I looked at refer to the part in passing and don't give any analysis or discussion of the particular part, or use the part as an example for study purposes. I don't think one magazine article snippet constitutes enough to show notability, though it's more than we started with. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The significance of the 2N7000 really rests on its "Fetlington" behaviour. Although a dubious term (it isn't a Darlington), it indicates the usefulness of a part that combines the FET's output drive capability with a Darlington's easy input driving and resultant simple circuitry as a minimal digital output for switching medium loads. This is why it collected the label "ideal hacker part" and why it's so widely noted as such in recent electronics construction texts aimed at schools and entry-level electronic hackers. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this can be sourced. If it is really such an influential part, then this must be attested to by multiple reliable sources, as does each and every Wikipedia article. No multiple, independant, significant, reliable sources: no article, no matter what. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe it is so attested in the four cited sources and many others. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This component is notable. For example, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=bDNUMb1D708C&pg=PA273 Circuitbuilding do-it-yourself for dummies]. Note also that if a PROD is contested then this is a good clue that the article should not be brought to AFD as it demonstrates a lack of consensus for deletion. A nomination which starts in this way immediately starts with one strike against it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator Removal of a PROD means nothing. (And I've had a bunch of nominations that started off as contested PRODs, go through to deletion.) Any random IP on Earth can remove a PROD tag end the polite fiction around here is that this is significant. It isn't, of course, but Wikipedians ofter tell themselves stories to keep their spirits up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular talk 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep as notable. A popular component that is described as the "most common type of MOSFET". At worst a merge candidate.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources provided by Dicklyon and improvements to the article during the course of this AfD. SpinningSpark 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's look at the changes since March 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2N7000&diff=421766429&oldid=420884917]]:
  • The BS 170 has been added in. Now it's about two devices, not one. That's not very discriminating.
  • First citation is a manufacturer's sales literature - of course *they* think it's notable, they make a dime off each one sold.
  • Then we talk about the 2N7002, a different part again. Discriminate?
  • Then we say it's a lovable and well respected semiconductor like its cousins, and a list of most of the parts nmominated for AfD the last week or so.
  • We cite a book about radio scanners(!) as a character reference - apparently we should have a bag of these handy for hacking scanners. No coverage of *this* part, it's listed with a grab bag of other parts.
  • Then we talk about two more *other* parts in DIP packages.
  • We recite the data sheet properties for this transistor (and another, different, transistor).
  • Then we quote the ad brochure for "Fetlington". Does anyone else but the maker call it this? The term hasn't made it to IEEE Std. 100 page 426, at least non in the edition I have handy.
  • Some unreference stuff about properties of power MOSFETs in general, of which this device is one. OK, but non-specific.
  • Then we have the all-important schematic symbol, and a scholarly note that the parasitic diode isn't shown.
  • Then some external references, some of which are for other parts.

Who invented it? When? How many are made? Which companies made it? Why was it needed? How does it differ from its contemporary parts? What was a technical issue solved in the design of this part? We'll never know. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems like a notable enough part. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, [http://www.google.com/search?q=2N7000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%222N7000%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=LGr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks&ei=aGCbTaq4HsHIgQfa0L2iBw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=662c65c032d075c4 this seems to confirm notability.] Who invented it and makes it is not easily answered, perhaps, but such small components aren't exactly like Ferraris or books. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's because they are not NOTABLE! If you can't even in principle identify sources for this, it's not VERIFIABLE and doesn't belong here. Take a look at Kowloon Motor Bus to see what an encyclopedia article looks like - now, I think that topic is obsessive trivia, but it's 20 times the article than any of the parts-list entries are. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That article doesn't have twenty times the number of sources - they both have the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Counting sources is dubious. Weight of sources matters. As below, my name is in thousands of books and that doesn't make me notable. Appearing in X parts lists doesn't make a part notable unless we find a source somewhere that says "This part is notable because everyone uses it." I look forward to the whole hardware store getting individual articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the weight of sources does not matter because we do not write article according to a schedule or priority. We are a volunteer project writng upon topics that happen to interest us as we please. Notability is a threshold concept which excludes topics of no interest to anyone but the author. Once a topic is across this threshold then it's in. If it doesn't interest you then you should please move along to the topics which do. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wtshymanski has banged on about the lack of history sources now in about two dozen of these electronic part debates, most of which have now closed "keep". This is a seriously misguided argument. Lack of history would cause a failure at FAC and be a serious issue even at GAN but it is certainly not a requirement for an article to exist. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that even hints at a requirement for a history section. The requirement is merely that sources discuss the subject. It matters not what aspect of the subject they are discussing (usually how it is used in the authors favourite circuit). SpinningSpark 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • {{outdent}}You don't think it's the tiniest bit odd that an article about a band that says in total "Their names are Tom, Dick, Harry and Philomena. They made a demo tape but lost it." would be shot down in flames in picoseconds, but a listing of a part number that says essentially "It can carry 1 Amp at up to 50 volts" is somehow a sacred article? That strikes me as being very odd. At least Philomena's band has a theoretical possibility of notability. Diodes don't. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't be disengenuous, you know perfectly well that the article currently says a lot more than that. Tom &C's band is a false comparison, they do not even have a datasheet published, let alone a book that says they are an "absolutely ideal hacker part" as this transistor does. SpinningSpark 02:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • See above - most of this article now isn't even about the epynymous part but a whole zoo of other semiconductors. Let's put in references to the CK722 while we're at it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And my name appears in 300,000 books, but that doesn't make me notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, let's agree to disagree. BTW, thanks, but I think I know what an encyclopedic article should look like (that this one isn't great is no reason for deletion, since that should concern the topic, not the article). Besides, one can ask whether you appear in 300,000 books or your name--it's hardly the same thing. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ? Could this parts list entry ever look like an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I can not find more then a passing mention of either of these parts in the citations given --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep  Google search for [allinurl: 2N7000] yields 568 websites that by using the name in a webpage URL show that they consider the "2N7000", under the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice".  It is reliable that these URLs exist and Wikipedia readers can verify that these webpages exist.  There is no deadline for completing Wikipedia, it is enough for now that we know that the part is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 9 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.