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.
Comment I have added three secondary references to the article. The 2513 gets a mention in the TTL cookbook, a bit more prose in the Radio Electronics article and an in-depth treatment in the TV Typewriter Cookbook. The topic has multiple secondary sources, but only one is in depth. There are no doubt other paper sources out there, but those are all the sources I knew of.
Mark viking (
talk)
04:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Sure, refs can be found but it is too specialised a topic for WP. We need to put a limit on articles of this type in the same way we do for bio articles, website articles etc. I think we should be using the
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as a means of determining notability by saying "there are no other articles on electronic components with this level of notability so it should be deleted." In that way a line is drawn in the sand and we only have the most notable items added rather than random things, such as a Signetics 2513. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
07:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF is on the page
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so it doesn't qualify as a solid basis for decision making in deletion discussions, although such comparisons could be made in support of the main argument. For topics like this without their own specialized guidelines, our line in the sand is in the form of the general notability guidelines,
WP:GNG. The GNG allow us to avoid subjective judgments like "it is too specialised a topic for WP" or "But this is an essential part of computer history!" and just concentrate on notability of the article under consideration.
Mark viking (
talk)
21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)reply
The
Signetics article already mentions specific integrated circuits; so does the
Intel article. Mentioning particular products is not a problem if they are verifiable and given due weight (see
WP:DUE). In fact, the 2513 is already mentioned and referenced in the
Signetics article. Merging other verifiable information from this article to the
Signetics article is a reasonable course of action, should this article be found to be below the notability threshold.
Mark viking (
talk)
21:42, 25 January 2013 (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.