Revision as of 13:34, 5 April 2011 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,122 edits Let's type in everythign in the TI catalog. Even TI doesn't vgive every device its own page!← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:02, 5 April 2011 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers477,152 edits →NotabilityNext edit → | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Notability== | ==Notability== | ||
NO single part number of a transistor or diode is notable in the Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | NO single part number of a transistor or diode is notable in the Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
:You already lost that argument. Why not try being constructive for a while instead? ] (]) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:02, 5 April 2011
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Electronics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Notability
NO single part number of a transistor or diode is notable in the Misplaced Pages 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)