Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Player (Microsoft)


 * 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   merge to Windows Media Player. As per the opinion of all but two contributors, who don't make a policy-based argument for their preference of keeping the article.  Sandstein  08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Media Player (Microsoft)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hi. This article is not notable, i.e. does not have what general notability guideline says an independent article should have. Although a merge with Windows Media Player may solve its problem, history shows that has once been merged but its merger is reverted. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems reasonably probable to me that enough WP:RS exist to meet WP:GNG. Media Player received significant coverage back when Windows 3.1 was current.  Many of the best sources describing this software would be found in books and magazines published in the early to mid 90s.  I found multiple results by searching for "Media Player" in Google Books (and narrowing the search to include only results published between 1990 and 1995 to weed out the much more numerous hits for the later Windows Media Player):   Unfortunately, few results aside from InfoWorld appear to be accessible in any form other than "snippet view".  But some of these "snippet view" results could be excellent WP:RS.  For example, based upon what I can glean from the Google Books "snippet view" of Peter Norton's user's guide to Windows 3.1 (1993), the book devotes a chapter to Media Player. .  I don't have time right now to dig more deeply to try to locate some more accessible sources, but I'm thinking it probably could be done, or perhaps someone has a stack of Windows 3.1 era books lying around.  However, the main question in my mind is whether Windows Media Player should be considered the direct descendant of Media Player (i.e. Windows Media Player builds upon the existing Media Player codebase and hence Media Player is merely an early version of Windows Media Player)?  Or are the two programs completely separate, albeit performing a similar function?  If the former, I'd be inclined to vote for a merge to Windows Media Player, but if the latter (and someone can track down some of the sources hinted at in Google Books), I'd be inclined to vote "Keep"). --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. As for your last concern, I believe Media Player is the old name of the product and it was later renamed "Windows Media Player". That aside, their functionality is for the most part the same. So, I think it has full merit for merge. But the reason I dropped this line and came to AfD was due to my perceived lack of notability. I couldn't tell whether the snippet view sources contained passing mentions or more than that. In two cases in the past, I also discovered that the community held a lower standard of notability than I did. So, I went by all I had: Proposing it here would tell me whether I was right or wrong. Let's see with which of us others agree. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, this piece of software is included with every Microsoft Windows computer. Yuffo (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. That is true but there is no policy saying Windows components can skip notability check because they are Windows components. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Windows Media Player. I'm inclusionist... Nixdorf (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Windows Media Player. After looking at the release histories, I became convinced that Codename Lisa's statement that "Media Player is the old name of the product" is correct. According to the WP articles, Media Player 5.0 was released in 1999 and Windows Media Player 6.4 was the earliest release of that program, also in 1999.  It does appear that Microsoft simply prefixed "Windows" to the product line and maintained a release history continuity in its version numbers.  The various releases of Media Player are just earlier versions of Windows Media Player, and as such, a merge is fully warranted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. Mike is correct, although it's also worth noting that many people continued to use the classic "Media Player" for several years after that to avoid adopting WMP.  a13ean (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Wrong forum, as this is not "Articles for Merger".   The issue has to do with notability, not deletion, so should go to either the talk page or maybe the notability noticeboard.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is not nominated for merge; in fact, a merger is explicitly opposed in nomination. However, WP:AFD and WP:CLOSEAFD allow merger to be discussed as an alternative to deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (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.