Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3904


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. There seems to be some support for a merge of this particular transistor article, so I encourage further discussion on that. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2N3904

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. No assertion of notability in the general sense - lots of listings in catalogs, parts lists, hobby electronics instructions, etc. but no 3rd party independent coverage showing notability in the non-electronics world. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog, a transistor/tube substitution guide, or an indiscriminate collection of information. There's a whole bunch of parts catalog entries of similar low utility to the encyclopedia. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a notable transistor in the electronics world but does on need its own article. A mention in the transistor article is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with others to a List of common discrete transistors, for all the very common discrete transistor components frequently found in hobbyist and educational material. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a paragraph on them in the transistor article is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why transistor, instead of BJT ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Electronic components are always difficult and the thoughts in my mind are "How much relevant actual prose about this device specifically is there or indeed, can there be?" There's plenty of details that could be included here that isn't but little that you couldn't (or probably wouldn't be better off) presenting in tabular form.  If the device had unique characteristics or applications then that would make it noteworthy, but the 2N3904's principal claim to fame is that is it is a bog-standard general purpose transistor with nothing exceptional about it.  As such apart from device data it is covered by transistor - no specific mention there is necessary.  The device data alone is no reason for an article - the data sheets are a much better reference - so I'm struggling to see any real role for this article. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for deletion withdrawn in light of Spinningspark's comment. A co-ordinated unified approach is needed here rather than piecemeal action.  Admin action is urgently needed to close down these discussions in favour of a broader-reaching meta-discussion.  Currently it seems the community is attempting to concentrate discussion on various different pages. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge To List of commonly used transistors. Many books call it a "popular transistor" or "commonly used transistor," and it is one of a handful which are well known to electronics hobbyists and circuit designers for the past couple of decades. Not just one more random transistor number. Questionable significance for a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the 2N3904 appears in over 4000 books, including over 500 near the word "popular"; including 5 books with the phrase ""popular 2N3904". Do some work instead of calling for its deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please list a book that gives some non-trivial, non-parts list information about the 2N3904. How many are/were made each year? What company first invented it? When was its JEDEC registry date? How is it better than competitive devices introduced at the time?  Was it always a JEDEC registered part or did it have a proprietary ancestor? Why is it so popular? We demand more information on a garage band to have it's own encyclopedia article.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No actual sound reason for deletion, as notability is clear for the entire category of AfDs made (kindly assume this opinion is true of the other AfDs of notable components). It is not a "parts catalog entry" in any case, and I regard that as an insufficient reason for deletion as it is not part of WP:NOT. Collect (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a pretty important transistor and there might be something about it in e.g. Horowitz and Hill, "The Modern Art of Electronics". But merging to some bigger article about common transistors seems like a good approach.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this seems to fail the GNG. While G-Books brings back lots of hits i can't find anything that goes in depth about this --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   03:38, 28 March 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.   D r e a m Focus  08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every new transistor played some significant part in history. No, they didn't. Many were insignificant. These articles were about a few of them that were significant and notable. Fluffy prose of "all must have prizes" is both inaccurate and also supports Wtshymanski's position that transistors are just equal items from a parts list, thus none of them merit individual articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Notable. Electronics hobby extends to areas beyond pure electronics. I found it mentioned in hobbyist articles about guitars, ham radio and tattoos. I added some cites to confirm info, but there are many more available. But I would have no objection to a merger into a table (or multiple tables for different specs.).&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:00, 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.