Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KD503

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 merge to 2N3055. Sandstein 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KD503

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

I prodded this due to "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline".It was deprodded by the creator with the following rationale: "I has got references it's only a transistor so there's not much to say about it save for datasheet, look at article about 2n3055 it has same type of references if this is to be deleted then 2n3055 should be deleted as well". The nominator admits himself this can never be destubbed, and as such, this already suggests this should not be a stand-alone article, but at best, merged (through I can't think of a target). What does come to mind is however WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of things, including machine parts. As for 2n3055, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument, but the other article seems to be better referenced and not a stub, so the comparison is not valid anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE mostly excludes articles on such specific components. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2N3055, same as MJ2955, TIP3055 and other related variants.

I don't understand the nominator's point about "2N3055 can never be expanded". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although Merging would be ok too, I think) There's far more than "catalogue" information here. Disk space is cheap. Bryce (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2N3055, as stated above. I believe that this is the best solution for this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:NOPAGE. Blue Riband► 14:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE doesn't ever support deletion of a page. It refers to whether pages should be a standalone, or part of a larger article. So do you mean merge here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to Merge as this doesn't qualify as meriting its own page. Blue Riband► 15:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2N3055. Kind of a judgement call here, but this just doesn't seem to justify a stand-alone article. On the other hand, the 2N3055 seems like a bit of electronics history, having been in production for 50 years. Covering all the 3055 variants in a single article just seems like the right thing to do. Sorry I can't find any specific wikipolicy to quote here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2N3055. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 12 January 2016 (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.