Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N400X


 * 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) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1N400X

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note when searching there is no such part as 1N400X, one must search for 1N4001 (or 2, 3 etc)
 * Note when searching there is no such part as 1N400X, one must search for 1N4001 (or 2, 3 etc)

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.There's no "who", "what", "when", "how" or "why" in this article, it's just a recitation of stuff you can get out of a catalog page listing. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. See comments at Articles for deletion/1N4148. These are the two diodes (and not counting the BZY88 Zeners) where there is a case for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion  Sp in ni ng  Spark  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) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG. A one line mention of this type of diode does not fall into line with "Significant coverage".

@Crispmuncher: one big AfD of all of these would get the same response. Each article needs to be weighed individually. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   23:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so: the problem with the current glut of component deletion discussions is that there are so many of them none of them can be considered properly. Wtshymanski beleives weeding is needed and I am receptive to that position.  However, this is not the way to go about it.  Consideration needs to take place at a higher level first, a set of guiding principles established, and individual articles in the light of those principles.  Without that we risk ending up with an inconsistent mess based not on the intrinsic worth of any particular article but based on how vigorously the deletionists and retentionists stand up for each individual article. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need another process, we have a perfectly fine mechanism for AfD and reliable guidelines as to what constitutes suitable topics. These can be applied consistently. I don't think I need to campaign for "no parts numbers as article topices", we can use existing guidelines. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GNG is the guideline, 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) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The title needs work but that's not a matter for AFD. The parts-catalog objection is not policy.  Our editing policy is to continue to work upon this topic to improve its scope and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Would someone please tell me which of these citations has more then a passing mention of this part? --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  &#124;  Review Me  23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Electronic Principles has a section discussing the properties of the 1N4001, not as a random example, but because of its widespread use in power supplies.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep  Sp in ni ng  Spark  07:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google search for [allinurl: 1N400X] yields 140 websites that note "1N400X" in the URL.  [allinurl: 1N4001] yields 605 websites that note "1N4001" in the URL.  Such usage shows that under the definition of notability in WP:N these topics are considered "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 topic is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs)
 * Comment by nominator Again, appearances on parts lists is not notability. There's no in-depth coverage, nothing to explain why this is the most blessed of all possible diodes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 11 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.