Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4026 IC


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus, now that the copyvio issues have been resolved. Default action would be to merge this back to 4000 series, so I'll apply the appropriate merge tags. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

4026 IC
I think this article raises a general issue - what should be our policy on standard IC datasheets? As it stands, the text (and, previously, the illustrations) were copied from here, or possibly from another source, so that gives us grounds for deletion per WP:CP. However, the text could easily be re-written and the images re-drawn to avoid the copyright issue. The question is therefore: do we want to include this sort of datasheet? There are three such articles, including this one, linked from 4000 series, and one linked from List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Do we want to keep them, or not? My opinion is currently Neutral. Tevildo 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as cut n paste copyvio and non-notable. --Ezeu 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the topic (not the content; that is, after fixing copyvio) back to the 4000 series topic. The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about. -- Mikeblas 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Older version not copyvio, see below.--Konstable 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyvio. External links on the 4000 series page would be the way to go for pinouts and specs. --DaveG12345 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment re: the others, I could only find:
 * CD4007 - which seems OK, if stubby
 * 4017 IC - which reputedly uses a copyleft image, but describes the pinouts (presumably not copyrighted?)
 * 4511 IC - as 4017 IC above
 * 7400 - which seems OK, if stubby
 * What to do about these...? Not a big fan of the inconsistent naming, and there's question marks over pinout info being copyrighted for two of them. Diagnosis: uncertain. --DaveG12345 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged 7400 into 7400 series. I think 7400 series and it's list are the way to go; we should have the 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles redriect to the series, and make sure there's a "list of 4000 series" parts, merging the content from 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles. This implements the idea that the series were important enough to warrant an article or description, but not the individual parts. -- Mikeblas 13:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, copyvio. --Coredesat talk 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote that page, and made the images. None of it is copyright violation. --DrBob 09:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Somebody completely re-wrote the page, removing my CC-licensed image and adding completely different ones, which I presume weren't licensed (or fair-used, or anything else). I would be OK with merging it, but deletion is unwarranted if it's reverted to an older version. --DrBob 09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I have reverted to the non-violating version and will reconsider my vote.--Konstable 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on the non-copyvio older version (to which I have reverted the article). The main article for these circuits - 4000 series has a very long list of these circuits and merging them all into there would make one huge and unreadable article.  Even though there aren't many with blue links there now, doesn't mean that they won't appear.  The other two alternatives are two have external links or to exclude all the info on the specific circuits.  I don't like the external links idea - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, and excluding material which definitely is useful seems like a waste.  I am inclined to say keep it here, but I think that would still violate the notability criteria, maybe this would make a case for ignoring all rules. Or maybe Wikibooks could take such material.--Konstable 11:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is confirmed to have no copyvio problems, then I have no problems with its notability. Merging doesn't really seem to address the problem of there being a hell of a lot of these.--DaveG12345 04:36, 3 July 2006 (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.