Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N5401


 * 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1N5401

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability for this tiny electronic part. A parts catalog entry; Wikipedia is not a parts catalog or semiconductor substitution guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete - Agree that there really doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough, if any, notability here, nor assertion. Good subject for cleanup. This also should have been allowed to be deleted via PROD. — Becksguy (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and redirect to 1N540X All the other entries at 1N540X redirect to that article, so should this one. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable diode. Being a tiny electronic part is not a policy-based argument for deletion.  Our actual policy is to preserve content. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator How about lack of notability? It's ONE diode in a series of unremarkable parts. Even if this was merged to "1N540X" ( a silly name for an article, no-body calls it that), it's still not notable.  You don't preserve everything hanging on the branch, just the fruit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I strongly argued to Keep on the other side of Wtshymanski's position in 2N3055's AfD, but in this AfD he is totally correct. I'm normally in favor of saving articles that have intrinsic notability, but that require rescue work to find the WP:RS or to clean up per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, but this device is non-notable. The device has been listed in many hobbyist articles and parts listings, but without any context on the device, or more than mentioning it as a part to be used. Nothing that establishes the notability of the device. No one has found any RS. There's no "there" there. — Becksguy (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply This is exactly why sometimes you don't lump all the AfDs together in mass. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's why you should have been more selective in you mass AdD nominations; by treating them all alike, you turned what should have been an easy uncontested PROD into a part of a big ruckus. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, here's where it got the PROD tag removed ]. Left to itself the article would have continued undisturbed and irrelevant forever. Has anyone noticed we're arguing about an article about a DIODE? All the Trekkies down at the comic book store are sniggling "Get a life!". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the edit summary there? You made it part of a class... Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not forget the comments I placed on your talk page at the same time as the deprod:  You chose not to take those on board.  Fair enough, but don't pretend that it was a deprod without any rationale. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the other parts articles in question are all a bit more in a grey area, but this one pretty clearly has no notable coverage, and being a part does not give inherent notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 1N540X. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this fails the GNG --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  &#124;  Review Me  00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fails the GNG, and I don't think Wikipedia should attempt to be an electronic parts catalogue. Reyk  YO!  01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: for the moment, anyway. Are the GNG satisfied?  Definitely - they are for the vast majority of common electronic components.  A listing in an equivalents handbook fulfills the notability requirements - significant, reliable & independent.  Indeed, since the whole purpose of equivalents books is to compare and contrast components with each other (often it becomes what other component would be suitable for a given job, rather than what is a direct substitute) there is a certain amount of depth there. Yesterday I went to the local university library and in the space of ten minutes had grabbed four such guides.  The 1N5401 was in three of them and diodes turned out to be outside the scope of the fourth.  The GNG are satisfied. I've said elsewhere that I don't believe that this necessarily translates into a worthy topic for an encyclopaedia article but that is why general principals are needed in place of dozens of separate and independent but inextricably linked debates.  On the basis of policy as it exists now there are no real grounds for deletion. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see we have a redirect edit war started already. I would have done that myself if I thought it was OK to do so while the AfD is open. What's the correct policy on this? Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Guide to deletion, the article should not be changed to a redirect while an AfD is in progress.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I suspected. So let me ask this: does anyone object to the redirect to 1N540X, which will itself probably be redirected to the merged article 1N400X, which may get renamed to reflect the expanded scope?  Does anything still want to argue for keep or delete instead? Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what I think. No matter how many bits of floating wood we find, it's still not going to make a cabin cruiser. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Performing the redirect whilst the AfD is still under discussion was disruptive and against policy, made worse because it by no means reflected the most likely outcome of this AfD. Although I broadly support that outcome (see below, but note that there's a merge in my recommendation too) if you look at the arguments at the point the redirect was done there was no agreement: two of the three "merge and redirects" have no rationales (this is not a numerical vote; they may as well not be there), leaving opinion divided between keep and delete, all based on whether notability guidelines are met or not. If I was closing the debate at that point it would most likely have been as "no consensus", which defaults to leaving things as they are. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to 1N540X and redirect. Notable diode but the series clearly forms a group with considerable similarities between them, and all belong together in one article . RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The merge has been done already. If we could close this AfD, even with "no consensus", we could get on with it.  Nobody is going to object to the redirect.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 14 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.