| Revision as of 16:57, 5 April 2011 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,122 edits Ambles off, humming Every Sperm is Sacred← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:11, 5 April 2011 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,122 edits Nothing is constructive here, if you get right down to it.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :You already lost that argument. Why not try being constructive for a while instead? ] (]) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | :You already lost that argument. Why not try being constructive for a while instead? ] (]) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm trying . And for other parts, for example, 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 . But ]. 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. --] (]) 16:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | ::I'm trying . And for other parts, for example, 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 . But ]. 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. --] (]) 16:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Leaving aside the significant question of "Is editing Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:11, 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)
- I'm trying . And for other parts, for example, 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 . But ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . And for other parts, for example, 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 . But ]. 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)