Deletion of 2N3055

Comment: mdash;A check of external/secondary sources shows that there is more than enough coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. I dispute the assertion that this falls under . It was a valid piece of standardized hardware that was popular and widely utilized.&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: No actual sound reason for deletion, as notability is clear for the entire category of AfDs made (kindly assume this opinion is true of the other AfDs of notable components).  It is not a "parts catalog entry" in any case, and I regard that as an insufficient reason for deletion as it is not part of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per nom, there are no   sources to establish  nor does the article offer any reason to think this part number represents a particularly unique or more influential part than any of the other millions of power transistors ever made.  As pointed out at , ''"Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:SECONDARY||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:SPIP)

Comment: per  and other keep arguments. There are two delete claims in the nomination: fails NOTABILITY and INDISCRIMINATE. I disagree with both, and responses follow. (1) The ''IEEE Transactions'' article provides the pole that enables this article to pole-vault over, and thus clear, the notability bar set in . That article is seven pages long and is from a highly respected and peer reviewed journal. That makes it very significant coverage. If ''Transactions'' is an "obscure" journal, then so is JAMA, and the rest of the journals listed at Lists of academic journals.  states that peer reviewed journals are reliable sources of the highest possible quality. The four additional references provided by Edison (and his arguments) together with the six references from the article are clearly sufficient, especially with the blockbuster ''Transactions'' article per multiple editors here. (2) No one is suggesting that all "parts catalog entry" devices, or each of an "indiscriminate collection" of devices be given an article, just the notable and verifiable ones. Like this very discriminate device, selected due to it's notability. Just as not every movie ever made should have an article, just the notable ones. This article also passes the bar set in INDISCRIMINATE. (3) In addition, the part number is not "nearly completely arbitrary"; Two out of the three parts that comprise the device's name are defined and defining, only the last four digits might be considered arbitrary, in the sense of being a differentiating serial number. That makes this name much closer to the polar opposite of arbitrary. (4) Finally,  doesn't specify general or non-obscure journals to establish notability, only that the sources are multiple, reliable, independent, and neutral, regardless. As is the case here. Notability does not equal popular either, otherwise many serious and otherwise notable articles would fail. And we would fail our readership when they come looking for something notable, but not necessarily common or general knowledge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:N)