Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AF107


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

AF107

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. This was prodded in the past by User:Alan Liefting and was deprodded by User:Andy Dingley with the following rationale "historically significant transistor, albeit obsolete today". I can't find any good sources, nor have any been added to the article. WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid assertion unless backed up by sources, so - can anyone find anything? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having failed to delete any of the other transistor articles you've gone after Articles for deletion/TIP31 (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/KD503, you do still keep trying, don't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * KD503 was merged, which is fine with me. Now, do you have anything to say about this one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep As noted at the outset, this was a transistor of the 1960s which occupied an important role at the time as "the" radio frequency small signal transistor. Expanding and sourcing the article is waiting on someone who still has the reference texts of those days. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for your assertion of WP:ITSIMPORTANT we still are missing even a single reference that would help estabilish the subject's notability. Could you provide one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To explain why it's notable isn't the same thing as just claiming blankly that "it just is". Lack of space some years back mean that I no longer have the paper sources to allow me to fully cite this. I would hope though that some other editors might have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈(conjugate) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. we normally have pretty full coverage of technical subjects in electronics. It doesn eeda further referene--perhaps Draft space or a combination article?  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  02:20, 3 February 2016 (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.