Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uninstaller


 * 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   keep. AFD is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninstaller

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

While the concept of uninstallers is a notable matter, this article, despite its name, proceeds to describe a completely alien topic which fails to meet Wikipedia general notability requirements. To make matter worse, this article is written like a blog post or the author's opinion, cites not a single reliable sources and employs a heap of weasel words or other vague phrases. (E.g note how many "Usually" are used and how the phrase "most (third-party) uninstallers" is used.) Finally, this article also contradicts itself too. It can be safely deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is notable.  The article contains basic information about the topic.  The remaining editorial musings can be dealt with by editing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a topic worthy of inclusion, but it really needs to be rewritten. Reach Out to the Truth 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic merits an article irrespective of what's currently there.--Michig (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see. So, are you people proposing a Keep and merge or Keep and rewrite ? We could merge the notable parts of summary section into Installer article, blank this page and leave a redirect. We also can copy-edit, cite reliable sources, proofread and cleanup, which is a tough task. Is there anyone between you who think it can be done? Fleet Command (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can have at least a short properly sourced article here. Sources exist with which to improve the article, e.g., , , , from Google Books.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - poor article, notable subject with quite a long history. Needs to be rewritten to be decent but AFD isn't the forum for that - tag it and move on. -Halo (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - poor article, notable subject Philly jawn (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.