Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N4148

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. Big Dom 19:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1N4148[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No referenced assertion of notability. Parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. No assertion that this particular tiny piece of hardware is notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Name a diode: IN4001, IN4148 and (if you're old) IN914. Whilst I'd agree that dumping a stock list into an encyclopedia isn't the way to work, this is one of the handful that is noteworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pretty much the most commonly used diode there is, see eg [1]; every electronics hobbyist will have some in their parts box. If it were an ice-cream it would be vanilla; it it were a soft drink it would be Coke; if it were a car it would be a Ford. It is clearly notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator If it was notable, there would be independent reliable sources other than parts catalogs. Where are the sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it was notable that could be reliable sources added to the article. The gap between sources that are applicable and those that are already listed is that covered by WP:BEFORE. Ignoring this is just not helpful to building the quality encyclopedia that we're supposed to be working towards.

What is your point here? That the article fails to express notability (it probably doesn't), or that its subject could not achieve notability, even with effort? One of these is a lazy AfD, the other is naivety about the subject, something which I believed you had knowledge of. It is always quicker to write AfDs than it is to build defensible articles. If your point is just to prove speed in a typing contest, then congratulations, you've won. However, is that really a useful result? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by nominator The article has been here for four years and is still a copy of a datasheet. There is no explanation as to who makes this part, when it was invented, why it was invented, what significance it has to the world. We're not going to get any of that, because there are no sources - someone would have found a source in four years if such things existed, and they don't. Wikipedia isn't about things that are true or important - it's about things that are verifiable, and there's nothing offered so far that asserts the notability of this tiny part. Why is it here? No-one has explained that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an utterly ubiquitous component known to every electronics engineer and hobbyist. Sources might be hard to find online but at least one research paper thought his diode was important enough to investigate individually. And here is an ESD study of this diode. SpinningSpark 10:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the component is mentioned in 3640 books and 3900 academic papers. Mange01 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3640 books works for me. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertions above of ubiquitousness.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure the part number appears in thousands of parts lists. That doesn't make it notable. A passing mention is not enough. Significant non-trivial coverage is required. Do any of these thousands of books and papers answer such questions as "When was the 1N4148 invented?", "Who invented it? ", "Why was it desirable to develop it?" "How is it made?" "How does it differ in properties from other similar products?" "Why is is commonly used?" "How many are sold each year?" "Who makes it?", etc. - in other words, why is this part notable? My name appears in 300,000 books,too, but that doesn't make me notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple paths to notability in Wikipedia. These include:

1) WP:5

2) WP:TheGoodOfTheEncyclopedia

3) notability essays

4) notability guidelines

a) "occasional exceptions" noted by the notability guidelines

b) SNGs,

c) WP:N and that the topic satisfies the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice". WP:N does not require that WP:GNG be satisfied (see WP:GNG).

The search [inurl:1n4148] generates initially 25,200 web pages which reduces to 633 by making Google list the pages. The existence of each such web page is reliable (can be verified by readers). To the extent that each of those 633 web pages are from different publishers, those 633 web pages are each statements that the topic meets the definition of notability in WP:N, i.e., is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is it significant coverage? Does anyone explain anything about the 1N4148 aside from saying "Popular part, thus and so characteristics". For instance, when was it first made? Who first made it? How many are made each year? Why did we need a 1N4148 when we already had the 1N914? You know, non-parts-list related stuff, that makes an article instead of a cross-reference guide entry. (Even this is getting rather obsessivly detailed for a general purpose encyclopedia; Horowitz and Hill don't do more than mention the diode in passing, I bet.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not require "significant coverage". It is not WP:N itself that mentions "significant coverage", that is in WP:GNG. The definition of "notability" in WP:N is "worthy of notice", for which WP:GNG is (but) a guideline (see the last paragraph in WP:GNG). Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to Wikipedia and see hairs split finer than you've ever seen them split before. It's a spare part. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Simple? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just reverted a non-admin close as speedy keep, because it doesn't fit the criteria for WP:SPEEDYKEEP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.