Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara (chip)

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 of the debate was Redirect to UltraSPARC T1.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara (chip)[edit]

This page is both incorrect and a duplicate. It is not a chip, it's a microprocessor. "chip" is slang for microprocessor. Additionally, this article is talking about the UltraSPARC T1 processor, which has its own article. The original author linked this page from Niagara, a disambig page, and ignored the already created Niagara Processor link, which is now a redirect to UltraSPARC T1. The only contributor is anonymous. In summany, this page is misleading and a duplicate, and does not serve to enhance wikipedia. — Fudoreaper 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UltraSPARC T1. Dragonfiend 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dragonfiend. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a redirect. The chip is already on the Niagara disambiguation page. I doubt anyone is going to type “Niagara (chip)” into the search box. It is much more likely that a person would just type “Niagara” and thus be sent to the disambig page. ♠DanMS 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dragonfiend. Redirects are cheap. I can see how someone might link to it from an article. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 17:02, 16 November 2005 (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.