- 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 redirect to MPlayer. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MplayerXP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Minor fork of MPlayer which does not assert its notability through the inclusion of any independent reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to MPlayer for lack of notability. It may be okay to merge some of the content into that article as well. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to MPlayer as above (non-notable fork); support the merge of content if reliable sources can be found - the lead claims 'better CPU utilization', which definitely needs a source. Dialectric (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just plain delete We don't need a record of minor forks. Miami33139 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that somebody would be typing MplayerXP here on Wikipedia, since the fork does exist. At least, taking the reader to the MPlayer article would give the casual reader some information. Hence my proposition to redirect rather than simply delete. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there is no evidence of any external coverage of the application, is there any reason to believe it's a likely search target? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost 1,300 hits in January - that is probably by people link-clicking after introduction of wikilinks to the article. Before that, about 30 hits per month, probably as a search target and of course those editing the article. I don't know, but it's not what I'd call "very few" hits. So I'm still leaning towards a plausible search target. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there is no evidence of any external coverage of the application, is there any reason to believe it's a likely search target? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 19 February 2009 (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.