Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIP31 (2nd nomination)

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. Article's subject is found to be notable; recommend reworking the article into a broader TIP topic as suggested below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIP31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The prior deletion discussion from 2011 was closed due to being a part of a controversial mass nomination. Let's look at this individually then: how on Earth can this meet WP:GNG? I don't see how, but I am open to learning. Pinging participants of the prior AfD: @Wtshymanski, Andy Dingley, Dicklyon, Spinningspark, and Crispmuncher: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 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. In addition to being too technical, WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here as well. If there is something noteworthy about such a specific type of transistor, someone should be able to write a decent general overview in Bipolar junction transistor and split the content out. This doesn't seem to pass that test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What does "too technical" even mean in an encyclopedia? That's a need to fix it, not to give up. As to notability, then this series (like the others still listed as articles) are highly notable and widely used. We would hardly delete the Austin Allegro because we have "too many car articles". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSIMPORTANT nor WP:ITSNOTABLE are a valid argument, neither are any straw men references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a "straw man" reference? There are any number of good, solid technical handbooks discussing this group of transistors. There is a similar volume using this specific transistor in applications as the "go to" mid-power transistor in recent years (especially in the hobbyist / Maker movement (our readers!), where the range of choice is less sophisticated and this gets used for everything). You can't discount all these by pasting random links in ALLCAPS, no matter how irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The straw men is your irrelevant digression about Austin Allegro. Back on topic, please cite those " solid technical handbooks" discussing TIP31 in depth, rather then in passing? All I see on Google Books are mentions in passing. That's not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not saying the 31 in specific deserves its own article, but as far as I can see this is the only TIPxx article on wikipedia. TIP stands for Texas Instruments Power transistor, but has become an industry standard, and TIPxx (29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 48, 50) transistors (and Darlington pairs like TIP110, TIP120/121/122) are available from all the main semiconductor producers (Motorola, ST, RCA, SEC, Fairchild, etc.). Most readers will have appliances with TIP transistors in their home. Billions of these have been produced, yet they only have a stub on WP. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Prevalence (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that rewriting this as TIPxx transistor series makes some sense, but keep in mind WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument: we need sources discussing the significance (importance, popularity) of this item (or series of). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to new title TIP  AfD is not cleanup.  If we had an article on TIP, we could merge it there, but we don't yet have such content contributors, and our policy is to preserve, not delete.  Nor will deleting the article assist in attracting content contributors.  Google books snippets in EEE 1969 states, "Only Texas Instruments now offers complementary pairs in plastic from 1 to 25 amps with power dissipations up to 90 watts."  Google books snippets in Control Engineering 1970 shows that TI listed this as one of the top 61 out of 5289 power transistors. 

• Electronic Circuit Analysis. Pearson Education India. 2012. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-81-317-5428-3. If the Transistor number contains TIP as beginning letters, it indicates that it is a Texas Instruments power Transistor.

Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retitle to the overall TIP, which would satisfy the same arguments put forth by Unscintillating, at which point we could list the other TIPs, as per Prevalence. A quick google search of Texas Instruments Power reveals many good sources. If kept, will be more than happy to begin the conversion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "TIP" mean? If Texas limit this to bipolar power transistors in a TO220 or similar package, then fine. But if (for instance) they make linear voltage regulators etc. under the same "TIP" brand, then I would see that as too far to include in the same article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I made my !vote, I notated a full citation to define TIP.  Do you have another reference to provide?  I don't doubt that you are correct that the definition will want improving, but is it sufficient for this AfD?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 18 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.