Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winamp Alternative

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 (all). - Bobet 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All seem to be spam for non-notable recently released video codecs. Staecker 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per nom. Note that I was the person who prodded Winamp Alternative. MER-C 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for Quicktime/Real alternative with need for rewrite (don't know about Winamp Alternative). Quicktime alternative gets 1.25m google hits and real alternative over 2 million. I haven't used Quicktime Alternative, but Real Alternative is certainly not "new" nor "not notable." They're certainly not spam, but if they read like adverts (which doesn't make sense, as they're free), they shold be rewritten, not deleted. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of ghits, and they aren't that new, I first downloaded them about 2 years ago. Maybe merging into one article could be an option Lurker ^haver 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dark Shikari. --Celithemis 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For at least Real Alternative. I believe that was bundled with Kazaa Lite. Mitaphane _talk 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as notable software. BoojiBoy 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all As various above. Macktheknifeau 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at least for Real Alternative, which is a notable software -- Whpq 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. As stated before, these codecs are well-known to advanced computers users and just need some cleaning up. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QuickTime, Delete Winamp. Keeps per above, but Winamp, as a free, ad-less software that doesn't use proprietary codecs doesn't push many people to using an "alternative" program. - Thorne N. Melcher 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QuickTime Alternative — applications are notable. --Edward Sandstig 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QuickTime Alternative. Allows you to use generic players like Media Player Classic or VLC Player to play Real and Quicktime encoded video so that you don't need to install multiple unnecessay software on your system. Camden7 02:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QT Alternative. Notable software and also importance with related software Fyver528 14:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks neither spammy nor non-notable. Grobertson 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QuickTime Alternative. They are well known and are relevant. Btw, never heard of Winamp Alternative.--Anupamsr 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real/QuickTime Alternative. Not spam, well-known, have been around a while. Not sure about Winamp Alternative, which is created by someone else.--67.168.0.155 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: Agree with NeoChaosX above; all the articles, including Winamp Alternative, are potentially informative & valuable resources. Winamp Alternative is in bad shape, admittedly. RubyQ
• Keep all as notable software!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.36.103 (talk • contribs)
• Keep all As they are notable software and regardless of their potential legal status in wide use already. - Cyrus XIII, August 18th, 2006
• Keep Real/QuickTime, Delete Winamp. In my opinion te two first are relevant and widely used. The latter, Winamp alternative isn't of very widespread usage, as the features it provides are not seen as essential by many users.--Pfc432 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is a clear majority. Should we now close this AfD? The tag on the articles look annoying :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:21, 20 August 2006 (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.