Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3N170

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 no consensus. So Why 08:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3N170

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The prod was denied for - "Widely used part, frequently used as subject in research papers, and at least four manufacturers all point towards notability." Being widely used and having four manufacturers is irrelevant to the notability guideline. I saw some research papers while searching, but those were trivial mentions and no papers were solely or mostly solely devoted to this product. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads more like an ad than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980: Unless you think this is a WP:G11 situation, the article can be improved to address this issue and deletion is not required. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some electronic components are so ubiquitous that they become the go to part for that particular application. Examples are the 555 timer and the 1N4001 rectifier. I'm not sure that this transistor has quite risen to that, but multiple simultaneous manufacturers are certainly an indication of widespread popularity. That is not proof of notability of course, but it is a strong indication, certainly enough to decline a prod. SL93 is also wrong that all the research papers are trivial mentions. This study for instance, looked at thermal modelling of MOSFETs. The characteristics of two transistors were studied in depth, one of which was the 3N170, so we can say that half the paper is directly about the item. SpinningSpark 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple manufacturers over many years is good evidence of notability in this field. Here are a couple more references [1], [2]. This product has been around for over 30 years so many sources are going to be offline. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability. How is this part different than any other? The article doesn't say, and the only references are primary sources. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable computer part; no encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I second SpinningSpark. The product may be notable. The current article says almost nothing. My memory is dim, but discrete small signal MOSFETs were a big innovation. There were lots of (by necessity depletion mode) JFETs around (U310 I_GSS < 150 pA, MPF102, 2N4416) with substrate connected to source. Enhancement mode MOSFETs with no gate protection became available, and ultra high DC impedance amplifiers (electrometer#Solid-state electrometers) were possible (don't use a socket; Teflon standoffs; cleaning required). Parts came with shorting wires because it was easy to destroy the gate insulator; parts were soldered into the circuit and then the shorting wire was removed. ESD conscious assembly became a big thing; floor mats and wrist straps. Then diode protected gates were introduced to allow MOSFETs with less trouble (but higher gate current). I cannot tell if the 3N128 (depletion MOSFET) has gate protection. It may be that the 3N170 was one of the first devices with gate protection. In looking at Google, a book covering ESD tests single out the device: "One exception was the V_GS threshold changes in the 3N170 MOSFET."[3] If it is one of the first gate-protected MOSFETs, then there would be print media descriptions in Electronics and Electronic Design ca middle 1960s (and possibly not online). The MOSFET article does not address gate-protection. Another article addresses radiation dosing. A DTIC article considers it as single-supply voltage comparator in a point-detonating fuze. The device was made by many manufactures and could be notable, so I would not delete it. Glrx (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2017 (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.