Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of native x86-64 Windows software

:{{la|List of native x86-64 Windows software}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of native x86-64 Windows software}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|List of native x86-64 Windows software}})

The x86-64 architecture is now a de facto standard, and all modern Free and proprietary software packages are inevitably going to support it. This list is therefore unmaintainable; already thousands of software packages are eligible for inclusion here. Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#DIR, WP:SALAT. The list is too large in scope to be useful, maintainable and suitable for an encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This clearly violates WP:NOT#DIR, if only we could delete the other lists which are doing the exact same!!!!! JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• We can. That's what AfD is for. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• It is a slow, painful, and uphill battle my friend. We must have dozens hundreds of lists just like this one, and that doesn't even include all the "Comparison of X" lists which are made up almost exclusively from original research. Good luck! JBsupreme (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. With 64-bit Windows 7 becoming common, this list is rather hopeless in scope. Pcap ping 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per JBsupreme's argument. Jeh (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per all above; it's not even very helpful at what it's already doing, since it doesn't clarify which apps are for Server 2003 x64, XP Pro x64, Vista 64, or 7 64... many of them being incompatible with some or all-but-one versions — which I mention just in case it is kept, as this'd be an area vaguely worth expanding on. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (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.