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. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N3055[edit]

2N3055 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Little or no notability of this parts catalog entry. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Wtshymanski (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there are lots of sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY, they should be cited in the article, not just referred to in vague terms in an AfD discussion. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion. There are several other transistor articles: TIP31, 2N2222, 2N3904 to name a few. 86.142.3.11 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

As always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I will tag these as well. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to contest deletion, simply remove the PROD template per procedures at WP:PROD. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing and found that this article is targeted for deletion. In my opinion this is a mistake, the 2N3055 is an mark in the history of the transistor, for a better explanation please refer to the paper Ellis, J.N.; Osadchy, V.S.; , "The 2N3055: a case history," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on , vol.48, no.11, pp.2477-2484, Nov 2001 doi: 10.1109/16.960371 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=960371&isnumber=20748 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.124.164 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the general notability guideline and ask yourself if obscure journal citations really qualify this as notable in a general encyclopediac sense? There's a million parts catalogs that list 2N3055, but that doesn't make this particular part notable in the sense that we use the term on the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices is not an obscure journal. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a little obscure; City of Winnipeg public library doesn't hold it, but U of Manitoba claims to have it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the City of Winnipeg public library holds most relevant research journals in any field. It probably only holds the general journals, if that. If your measure of if a journal is obscure or not is if it appears in the City of Winnipeg library, you have a very skewed view of things. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is well known among engineers, and its journals are very respected. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IEEE is indeed well-known among engineers and while its journals are indeed respected, most of them (except Spectrum) have only a niche audience. A single article in one of them discussing this transistor does not seem to me to meet the requirement for significant coverage as described at WP:SIGCOV. Msnicki (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The premier technical body in the world publishes an article with the specific title, The 2N3055: a case history and you claim that this doesn't convey notability? Just what are you looking for here? A papal bull? Telegram from the Queen? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if that (apparently, one and only) IEEE article about this part was available without having to pay to read it. Has anyone read it? If so, could you post some quotes or otherwise shed some light? Depending on what's there, maybe there's a case to be made. But a case study report is often just that: One case they've studied, explaining how they did it. It can often be more about their analysis, e.g., the SPICE modeling mentioned in the abstract. I concede the abstract concludes, "We propose that this transistor be given a place in the archives of history, ranked alongside other famous devices of the 20th century such as the 300B tube". But to me, this doesn't sound all that compelling. I know what a 300B is but are they really famous? And what does it mean if he proposes that this part is just as famous as the 300B? Msnicki (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know the 300B (it's American, I'm not), but I do know that it's a pre-war "cheap as chips" valve, yet the street price for a good pair of them today is around £200. Sometimes individual components are significant in their own right, because they achieve a level of ubiquity or appreciation that sets them apart from the other "parts list" components. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to where you think in Wikipedia policies and guidelines that specialist subjects are excluded from the encyclopedia? The general notability guidelines merely requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to justify an article. SpinningSpark 08:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. Can I delete all of baseball then?, because I really don't give a damn about it. We just do not get to pick and choose areas that we consider for subjective notability: if it reaches the WP:N guideline, it's notable for everyone, whether you like it or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baseball has multiple independent reliable sources and so meets the WP:GNG. A random subset of semiconductors do not have such multiple independent reliable sources, so fail the GNG and should be deleted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What citations support the claim that "these transistors were critical to the move from vacuum tubes to semiconductors in the early 1960's"? Msnicki (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article not citing sources is not, of itself, reasons for deletion per WP:DELETE. If an article is unsourced and a thorough search fails to turn up any sources then that is good grounds. However, if sources exist, as they have clearly been shown to in this case (including a high quality source from the IEEE) then they can always be added to the article and it does not fail through WP:N, whether or not the sources have actually been added at this time -which, by the way, editors have now already started to put in. SpinningSpark 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think there are sources, you need to get them cited. Tick tock! Msnicki (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the attitude. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have read the AfD instructions before commenting here, I draw your attention to point 4: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." That is, you should have looked for sources, rather than tell the rest of the good folk here to do it. The object at Wikipedia is to create and improve articles, not get rid of stuff because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It also seems clear that not only did you not return to the article to verify these sources were not now inserted (they are) but you also failed to read properly my previous comment which told you they were. SpinningSpark 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the nominator. I simply read about the nomination and came to offer my opinion of whether the article cleared the hurdle for notability. When I looked, it did not, in my judgment, and I said why. I'm not going to get into what I do or do not know about the subject area or what Google searches I did or did not run before posting my comment. I think it should be enough for me to say that I looked at it and that, in my opinion, the sources aren't there (even with the IEEE citation, as I explain above) to establish notability. I apologize for the tick tock remark; it wasn't meant to be disrespectful but merely a reminder that if you really do think there are sources, it would be helpful to see them before the debate closes. I can't prove the negative, that the sources don't exist, but so far as I can see, I don't think they do. Msnicki (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if we could find a source that says that. But when I Googled that phrase, 3 of the 4 results were a tutorial that remarked, "The MOSFET's simpler construction has give it a performance edge over the JFET, and made it the world's most popular transistor style." The 2N3055 is not a MOSFET. Yes, the 4th result does involve someone remarking he considers the 2N3055 is the world's most popular transistor, but it's a forum post from someone who also wants you to know he has a Porsche and a 4x4 Dodge truck. Msnicki (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are no Google book results with that phrase. Msnicki (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That particular quote was from a seller's site, but try this search. And don't be surprised if the 2N2222 or one of the others is also said to be most popular. I also added some good book refs, so you can look at the article for those. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So which one is the "most popular"? And does "most popular" mean the most cumulative unit sales, the most manufacturers, the highest value of total sales, the most applications, or the most TAB books that mention it? There's got to be some kind of source to back up a claim of "most popular transistor" and, "There can be only one". --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There can be more than one. The 2N2222 was extremely popular for what it did, and the 2N3055 was enormously popular for what it did. The 2N2222 could dissipate half or five-eighths of a watt at an amp or less at VHF, often used in single-ended preamp or buffering stages, while the 2N3055 was good for over a hundred watts, fifteen amps, and was happy at audio frequencies, often found in push-pull output stages. Apples or oranges? Bacon bits or filet mignon, which is "best?" __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above, on this page, I provided several refs to books which called this "the standard power transistor" and several like terms. Please read the previous discussion before claiming no references have been provided for it being "a classic," or "the most popular", or "the standard." Laziness on the part of editors at AFD is not a basis for deletion of an article. Edison (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like you've read that IEEE article. I haven't (I'm not willing to pay) so I have no way of knowing what it says. Can you share any quotes from the article that might offer reasons for notability? Msnicki (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you'll delete it, but you won't bother to read an eponymous article by the IEEE, who you don't consider to be WP:RS as it's "niche" and the nominator claims its "obscure".
I haven't read it, so I did the obvious thing and requested it by inter-library loan. It'll cost me less than a pint. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that different than insisting we should keep it based on an article no one seems to have read? Msnicki (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the abstract, available (for free) by following the DOI link. LouScheffer (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2N3055 power transistor was introduced by the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in the early 1960s. It was one of the first silicon power transistors, offered unrivalled second breakdown immunity and found many applications particularly in audio power amplifiers and linear power supplies. Other companies tried to copy it with varying degrees of success: one company acknowledges it now by naming a power MOSFET after it. We trace its history, manufacture and eventual decline against pressure from competing technologies. Modern simulation tools have been used to investigate the operation of the device which illustrate its good, and not so good, features. We also relate its geometry to a SPICE model. Neither of these tools would have been available to the original developers. We propose that this transistor be given a place in the archives of history, ranked alongside other famous devices of the 20th century such as the 300B tube.

  • If no one would ever read it, not even people trying to write an encyclopedic article about this part, doesn't that undercut the argument that this one IEEE article constitutes significant coverage? Msnicki (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should read The Book that Nobody Read! But if you want a copy of the IEEE paper, email me. As a teaser, here's a paragraph from near the end: Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity that the 2N3055 had, though, in its day, must surely be noted by the fact that other manufacturers offered similar devices, some with the “3055” name, and PNP complements using the name “2955.” At least one other manufacturer used the term “single diffused,” which had become associated with the high temperature drive-in of the 2N3055. But this claim referred to an emitter drive into an epitaxial base. One manufacturer has since named a power MOSFET after it, copying some of the pertinent device specifications. We believe that this demonstrates the industry’s acknowledgment to perhaps the world’s most popular power transistor of its time, if not in the 20th century.

  • Is that like the most popular size machine screw of its time, if not the 20th century, offered in similar dimensions by other manufacturers? Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, more like "the most popular power transistor of its time, if not the 20th century, offered as a drop-in replacement by other manufacturers." Your attempt to minimize the significance of this device by comparing it with a machine screw looks more like a vacuous rhetorical ploy than a valid analogy. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacuous. Wow. Is that like a the teaser Dicklyon was offering? Maybe this reference isn't as compelling to others as it is to you. Msnicki (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of this, including a complete lack of significant coverage (except the one citation no one would ever read except to defend an Afd), sure sounds a lot like the barely notable phenomenon of human nature, which is that we overvalue our own experiences. We want want what was important to us to be important to others. "B..B..But you don't understand. This was important. I had one!" Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mocking tone is another vacuous tactic, and unconvincing. Calling the IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices a source "no one would ever read" is either disingenuous or ignorant. Looks like "lalalala... can't hear you" to me. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I said. I do not regard any IEEE journal as something no one would ever read. I have extremely high regard for the IEEE and their activities and for their publications. I've read a lot of their magazines over a lot of years. But the issue isn't my personal regard for the IEEE. The issue is whether this one article can satisfy the notability requirements. If we were talking about 6 similarly obscure but reputable articles about this part by 6 independent authors, no one, certainly not me, would care if anyone had read them. It would be enough to point to them as significant coverage supporting both notability and the likelihood of being able to write an article without original research. But here we have a case where it's just a single article in one of the IEEE's special interest publications (it's definitely not Spectrum) and upon probing, it appears to be an article no one would be interested to read. Everywhere else, the part number seems to turn up only in the context of a parts list. Respectfully, this is why I remain unconvinced of sufficient notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm left defending truth then, since I don't have access to the resources to show you the article in question. Consider this, though: in living memory, many corner drugstores had a vacuum tube tester available to the public. If someone came in with a 12BE6, 12BA6, 12AV6, or a 50C5, their chances were good that the pharmacist or his helper would have one conveniently right there in stock. In the stereo age, the same might be said of the redoubtable 12AX7.
With the 2N3055, it is not so much a matter of "b-but I HAD one" as that semiconductor fabricators made them by the shipload, electronics manufacturers used them by the carload, and many a consumer audiophile had four of them without even realizing it. Before anyone jumps on the "without realizing it" bit, consider the drugstore anecdote above. If your stereo had a 2N3055 output stage and one of your intoxicated buddies managed to short out your speaker connections for you, your chances were very good that the repair shop already had a stash of these transistors, and you would not need to wait while they ordered the parts. More exotic devices coult take months to arrive.
You've had an offer of the article to read; why not check it out? Not all verifiability needs to be tractable to instant online access... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone's willing to email a PDF of the IEEE article via WP (is it possible to do that with an attachment?), I will read it. I prefer not to disclose my own email address. Msnicki (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your links for the various tube numbers are more revealing than you may have intended. The first set go to a page that describes a complete superhetrodyne radio design, not to articles about those individual parts, and the links and citations provided seem compelling that (whatever the present state) an entirely satisfactory article could be written about that radio. The tube numbers are merely mentioned as typical components, which seems completely appropriate, as would, e.g., a mention of this part number in an article about power transistors or transistorized power amps of the 60s or whatever. But your example of the 12AX7 should, I think, raise the notability questions as we're struggling with here: It's a part number and that's all. Nobody writes about a part number except for a parts catalog. Msnicki (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I grabbed the basic five-tube radio as an example of which tubes were likely to be widely known in that market, and it's appropriate that their part numbers redirect to the set. That is why I included the 12AX7, which was and is a significant part on its own, properly called the 12AX7. It makes little sense to muffle that into a more "reader-friendly" form for its article's title. Over fifty articles link to that page, which speaks to its usefulness in a Wikipedia context. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. "Nobody writes about a part number except for a parts catalog." See Zilog Z80, Motorola 6800, Intel 8086, and 555 timer IC. All of those were well-known landmarks to anyone familiar with that stretch of not-so-distant electronic hardware history. In the analog semiconductor world, the 2N3055 was just such a landmark. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Msnicki, I am horrified by your attitude over the IEEE source. You have had several quotes from it and an offer by Dicklyon to e-mail it to you, yet you will still not accept it as a valid source. We usually accept AGF sources that are not available online, and if you do not you should have a fair reason for doubting or else you should obtain the source and read it. First we have "don't want to pay", now when someone offers to send it to you it is "don't want to reveal my e-mail address", but you want others to reveal their e-mail address to you. Well sorry, we cannot send you an attachment unless you first send an e-mail that can be replied to. It's not as if you are posting your e-mail online where everyone can see it, you are only revealing it to one person who is going out of their way to help you, and if it is really a problem, just register a throwaway account with google or yahoo. SpinningSpark 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps my objection was unclear. The notability question isn't just a question of what does this article say and is this a reputable source. My point is that unless it says something truly exceptional, I don't think one relatively obscure 8-page journal article should be enough. Surely you aren't arguing for a new amendment to the WP:GNG that anything that gets at least 8 pages in any respected professional journal shall automatically be deemed notable, even if no one has read it. And can we please focus on policy, not our opinions of others? This isn't about me or my interest in remaining anonymous. Nothing could be more irrelevant. What this is about is whether this one source constitutes WP:SIGCOV. I don't see how it does. Msnicki (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it pretty much says that already. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of amending the GNG in the fashion you suggest is a straw man, unrelated to this AfD. You must have seen where it says, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."
This source's high quality is unquestioned. What you call obscurity, I call depth of specialized expertise. It unequivocally says, "We propose that this transistor be given a place in the archives of history..." and, "We believe that this demonstrates the industry’s acknowledgment to perhaps the world’s most popular power transistor of its time, if not in the 20th century."
Asking for more looks like moving the goalposts. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Msnicki seems stuck in the mindset of "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING! I CAN'T HEAR YEW! MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS!" References have been cited which are sufficient to clearly substantiate notability. Your unwillingness to discuss them or to accept them is lamentable. Edison (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking for more, Bill, is not moving the goalposts, it's reading the next sentence: "Multiple sources are generally expected." Edison has a response on his talk page. Msnicki (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki has mocked and ridiculed other editors here, as with his ""B..B..But you don't understand..." response to presentation of reliable sources with significant coverage of the transistor in question, rather than mere original research comments about personal experience with the device. When anyone criticizes his behavior in failing to discuss the sources, and "not listening," he posts an unjustified and inappropriate templated "No personal attacks" warning [3]. Clearly Msnicki was "not listening" when he did not take into account several other references besides the IEEE article which have been cited in this discussion. Edison (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that "generally expected" is a far cry from "required in every case." This source's assertion (power transistor of the century, ta dahhh) does seem "truly exceptional," more so since it's not coming from some trade rag which only survives at the pleasure of its advertisers. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, not with the consensus but the obviousness of it. Positions are clearly fixed, with only 3 of us arguing for delete and many more for keep. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. Do we have multiple, reliable, significant sources that discuss the 2N3055 in other than a passing way? We've got one - that's the IEEE article. We've got a metric buttload of "Build 2047 Projects"-type hobby books. That's a "kind" of notability. We still don't know from the article who first made it, when it was introduced, how many were made or sold in a typical year. We have the surprising claim that a 60 volt JEDEC transistor was used in Soviet 3-phase motor controllers. If I was 100% in favor of deleting this article on Friday, I'm now 90% in favor; but it's still mostly a parts catalog entry with some nice stories about flyback transformers grafted on. And this is the article that seems nearest and dearest to the parts-number-article defenders. The rest haven't got a hope at this rate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 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.
More