Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Installware

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 delete. Given that apparently the name is not used. If a redirect is created anyway and anyone objects to that, send it to WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Installware

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

Orphan (since 2010), no sources (since 2010), nothing more than a dictionary-style definition. Nothing useful turns up in the first few pages of a Google search. Many Google hits are "AGP InstallWare" - not relevant to this - or themselves appear to be derived from the present article. There's not even an independent dictionary definition of this word other than Urban Dictionary. Probable neologism that hasn't caught on. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I have never heard of "installware" and can't see that it's widely used, or even used by any relevant body or reputable media organisation. Google actually kept correcting it to installaware. Which is a commercial software package.Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potentially unwanted program, which seems to be approximately the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potentially unwanted program as stated above; there's no way of knowing how many people/if any people use this as a neologism for PUP, but creating a redirect would point those people to the right article if indeed they exist. Nanophosis (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a redirect would make sense only if the word is in fact in use. There is no evidence that it is. We shouldn't be creating 'just in case' redirects for unused neologisms. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I concur, still should be delete rather than redirect in my opinion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
delete pretty clear that nobody uses the word to mean this. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (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.