File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete
. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Previously pointed to 7 nm process. Neither 7 or 10 is equal to 8. I don't know much about the underlying technology and which is closest in terms of design (I found the link from GeForce 30 series). Can someone who knows this stuff suggest where to point it? Else I say delete. Gaioa (T C L) 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
: There's also the 6 nanometer redirect, which has at various times targeted both 5 nanometer and 7 nanometer. Would that be worth bundling here? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I may not have finished engineering school and may not be professionally qualified to say so, but it's my understanding that 8 still does not equal 10. If this were {{no redirect|1=8nm process}} I would say redirect to Die shrink#Half shrink which defines unofficial half-steps between the standard-defined semiconductor processes, but "8 nanometer" is just a measurement which we can't presume refers to die processes, nor which one it refers to. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the target does discuss an "8 nm process", which apparently is a variation of the 10 nm process [https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-develops-8-nanometer-foundry-process/] [https://www.engadget.com/2017-10-18-samsung-8-nanometer-chip-manufacturing.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAQ_ZkNsYa46m6Z8cSrzdAVOi9bNmG3oL2hfgxRBXtMTHlPFfmgOg6UkZ1ySq_xdsviBTDZOLx_nVwCc_utzIw9yGQzg-n5-H4lE1vGxi0V8uAcITdEpsKM4YKcrtZuKQ9KySBP6tsSxzDG8OGBQdRGjMQhHhtI2jPZEF7851u89] so it's a reasonable target. Hut 8.5 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong on both counts. The article does not discuss the 8 nm process per se, it mentions that Samsung have a version of that process. The article itself defines the 10 nm process as "'10 nm class' denotes chips made using process technologies between 10 and 20 nm," which plainly does not include 8 nm. SpinningSpark 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well the article does mention the 8 nm process several times, so it's a reasonable target unless it's covered somewhere better. Those links say the 8 nm process is based on the 10 nm process so the 10 nm process article isn't a bad place for it if it's not worth mentioning somewhere else. Hut 8.5 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There is a case for an 8 nm process redirect to somewhere, but not 8 nm which could mean all sorts of things. Same goes for all the nanometer redirects. Ivanector's suggestion of a target sounds good where there is not a specific article. SpinningSpark 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
::Also, perhaps too late to bundle into this discussion as the IP asks, but all such "# nanometer" redirects should be considered for deletion as well with the outcome of this discussion as useful precedent, unless there are other targets that would be cause for disambiguation or retargeting. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
: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.
