Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC548


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BC548

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Parts catalog entry, no referenced assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog or transistor substitution guide Wtshymanski (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of those transistors that is sufficiently widely used, and representative of its task, that it achieves notability for our purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, commonly used transistor, demonstrated by 120,000 sites aparrently carrying its datasheet . These aparrently indiscriminate nominations en masse for notable electronic parts are becoming disruptive. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When I have a moment from answering AfDs, is this best at RFC (waste of time) or ANI? A project-based list of "Transistors we really do care an individual damn about" would be useful (and let's indeed delete those outside this), but this is just AfD for the sake of it. If the articles are poor, then either improve them, or encourage others to improve them, but this scatter-gun use of AfD just wastes the efforts of the people who ought to be doing more useful work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator Only one contributor has made as many as 10 edits to the article. No-one is working on it in any substantial way, and no-one has addressed the lack of references or notability for the 2 years the article has existed. If it gets deleted now, someone can always recreate if if they find some good references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTIMELIMIT is relevant here. It is also a poor show (ie against policy) that it was necessary for the prod to be removed twice by two different editors before the mass-deletionists gave up on the prod and came here.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is clearly informative in an encyclopaedic sense, it goes way beyond the usual transistor data sheet information - in fact, only the final sentence of the "specifications" section could be said to be purely data sheet information: a tiny portion of this 5000 byte article.  I would say though, that the article discussion strays substantially outside of its title.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the text in this article isn't even about this device - it's about other devices, some of which are germanium transistors. The text that is specifically about this device is a recitation of specifications from an unreferenced specification sheet.  There's nothing in this article that says who first made it, how many are/were sold each year, why this device was necessary, how important this device was to the semiconductor industry. --05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP only lists about the 10 most popular transistors of all time. This appears to be one of those; it appears in over 200 books, like this one that says it's what's "most often needed". Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please list a book that gives non-trivial coverage of this important and valuable transistor. We have garage bands listed that have more historical information and context than this transistor. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:32, 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 need for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can keep track of them all, there's only 12 left (one got deleted already). See the sortable table at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion or a duplicate on my user page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 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.