Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Zeloof


 * 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. Kragen's opinion cannot be taken seriously, but there's still no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  07:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sam Zeloof

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a WP:BLP1E: brief coverage of a single thing. Guy (help!) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to have gotten rather thin coverage for their one event, there are a few articles, but nothing to indicate lasting significance or a pass of WP:GNG and/or WP:NPERSON Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Sam Zeloof's achievements are significant and expand greatly on the work done by Jeri Ellsworth, his work has been covered most notably by IEEE and also by Adafruit, repeatedly by Hackaday and was invited to speak at the Hackaday Supercon as well as interviewed on The Amp Hour. This coverage is varied across a range of topics, from his initial transistors, lithographic process and the creation of his dual differential amplifier. Faissaloo (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The latest comment does not cite or even look like it could be referring to a single compelling policy (in fact, it's a mix of various WP:AADD elements).
 * Keep It is absurd that this article is being considered for deletion. Until Sam Zeloof, nobody had ever made an integrated circuit consisting of more than a few transistors, except as part of a group effort by a university or large company — no individual tinkerers in their garages like the ones who invented vulcanized rubber, the means for the measurement of the gravitational constant, Hall's economical refinement of aluminum, or most of the circuit designs that make modern electronics possible.  Individuals with Zeloof-like budgets — a few tens of thousands of dollars — have succeeded in designing new chips in recent years, using MPW facilities like MOSIS and CMP, but at the cost of long turnaround times and no ability to experiment with process steps.  Analog electronics has been in a widely-remarked-on state of stagnation for decades as a result.  Zeloof has racked up an increasingly astounding series of world-first accomplishments, like a modern Charles Lindbergh or Santos Dumont.  Hobby electronics, perhaps all electronics, and perhaps manufacturing in general, will naturally divide into a pre-Zeloof era and a post-Zeloof era; this will be as obvious to everyone as it is to electronics enthusiasts after a decade or two. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Requesting that votes be justified in terms of existing Wikipedia policies is backwards; actions should be justified in terms of our shared values, of which existing Wikipedia policies are, we hope, a reasonable reflection, though necessarily imperfect.  Values are primary; policies are secondary.  This is the essence of WP:IAR and WP:5P5.  I think this guy's notability is sufficiently obvious without referring to the details of any of the policies we have worked out over the years to resolve difficult cases where we must trade off our values against one another; this is not such a case.  The danger the policies in question protect against is that there isn't enough coverage from reliable sources to keep our article verifiable, and there's clearly no danger of that, as other votes have already established.  Please do not WP:WL. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? I was just pointing out that your comment did not cite any valid reason why this person would be important. If he is, you can surely cite sources which demonstrate this, instead of going about with arguments like WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO. Comparisons with other figures seems like your own WP:OR and that is not helpful either in articles or in AfDs. Regarding WP:IAR, the only example I can think of an IAR keep is this, which is much more understandable than a random biography about a WP:BLP1E subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2020 (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.