Talk:2N3906
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability[edit]
NO single part number of a transistor or diode is notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's a parts list entry, not an article. This --thing-- tells us nothing we wouldn't learn from a parts catalog. All these transistor articles should be merged to "Semiconductor history" or "Development of the silicon transistor" as illustarative devices, not as free-standing topics by themselves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- You already lost that argument. Why not try being constructive for a while instead? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying [1] [2] [3]. And for other parts, for example, [4] gives us an actual date, with reference and a citation and everything, though it's for a second source of the part and still doesn't tell us anything about the origins. I've even been mentioned as contributing by another editor [5]. But there's very little meat in these gym mats. All those wonderful sources out there and yet nothing tells us, oh, say, how many were made, or why anyone should care about this obscure trinket. If you're sitting on "The 2N3906 Story: The Epic Brawling Saga of a Silicon Switching Transistor, the Men who Made It, The Women who Loved Them! (soon to be a major motion picture)", please quote away. I look forward to the Article Rescue Squadron fixing the numerous errors in these "articles", starting with comparing them to a JEDEC registered data sheet and fixing the oh-so-important specifications. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the significant question of "Is editing Wikipedia constructive at all?", I find in my last 500 edits on article space, only 69 of them had anything to do with parts list entries, though 97 were reverting vandalism or spam. Are these edits consctructive? That's up for sacred consensus to decide; not many of them have been reverted, at least so far. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Wikipedia should have historical information about these parts. But your reasoning makes no sense to me:
- Whether something is notable, and whether an article needs development, are entirely separate issues.
- Deleting an article because it is not yet finished does not in any way contribute to its ongoing development.
- RichardOSmith (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Wikipedia should have historical information about these parts. But your reasoning makes no sense to me:
- Leaving aside the significant question of "Is editing Wikipedia constructive at all?", I find in my last 500 edits on article space, only 69 of them had anything to do with parts list entries, though 97 were reverting vandalism or spam. Are these edits consctructive? That's up for sacred consensus to decide; not many of them have been reverted, at least so far. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying [1] [2] [3]. And for other parts, for example, [4] gives us an actual date, with reference and a citation and everything, though it's for a second source of the part and still doesn't tell us anything about the origins. I've even been mentioned as contributing by another editor [5]. But there's very little meat in these gym mats. All those wonderful sources out there and yet nothing tells us, oh, say, how many were made, or why anyone should care about this obscure trinket. If you're sitting on "The 2N3906 Story: The Epic Brawling Saga of a Silicon Switching Transistor, the Men who Made It, The Women who Loved Them! (soon to be a major motion picture)", please quote away. I look forward to the Article Rescue Squadron fixing the numerous errors in these "articles", starting with comparing them to a JEDEC registered data sheet and fixing the oh-so-important specifications. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that there are thousands of JEDEC registered parts, and most of them are not notable. However, a few parts proved to be so global useful and commonly useful that they do merit their own article. Think Ford Model T or Ford Taurus vs Lincoln LS. If you're going to pick twelve transistors to keep in stock, this is one of them.Pstemari (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Dubious[edit]
The specs in the article were listed as dubious, but there was no discussion here. I removed the dubious tags as they were well within the datasheet parameters.Pstemari (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Now, that's more like it. Not just a recitation of data sheet numbers! Names, DATES, importance. Needs some statistics, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would say, given that both the 3904 and 3906 are equally ubiquitous, but the former has a fuller article, perhaps this article would be better suited for a subsection of the 3904 article, given their complementary existence. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Where individual transistors are part of a family like this, the merge is reasonable as the overall article is more useful to readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)