Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatware

Neologism, 2,000 hits on Google, but only 1,680 when restricted to English pages. Possibly redirect to something? James F. (talk) 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge This is more correctly referred to as Bloatware, but the Bloatware page redirects to Software bloat which is debatable whether or not the two should be one article. I would create a small article for Bloatware giving a small definition, redirect Fatware to it and have a link from Bloatware to Software Bloat. Ben W Bell 10:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't think that there is anything to merge with Bloatware, given the substub nature here. It could be made into a redirect, but that's assuming that the people who use the term "fatware" don't know the word "bloatware." I would suppose that they do, that they're using the word to indicate "not severe yet" whistle and bell inhibition. Geogre 11:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 11:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Software bloat -FZ 13:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have heard the term "fatware" before, though it is considerably less common than "bloatware". Considering it commonly shows up in non-English pages on Google, I'd hazard a guess that it's a fairly common synonym among non-native English speakers who may be more familiar with the word "fat" than with the word "bloat". Not really neologism, but definitely dicdef. I'd redirect to Software bloat, and where that article says "...is called bloatware", I'd add an "or fatware" just to be nice. Bearcat 17:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to software bloat. Nothing to merge. — Gwalla | Talk 20:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to software bloat. Jayjg 20:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. Now I know why there wasn't an article :)... "Fatware" was part of the title of a PC Magazine or Byte article I read maybe ten years ago. I had never heard "bloatware". Vincent 23:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looks like the tide of discussion has beached this whale on the redirect to software bloat, so I went ahead and did just that. --Michael Snow 16:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)