402:. 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. --
265:. 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):
283:. 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
266:
311:
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,
310:
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
172:
287:
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
281:
166:
436:
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.
125:
234:
419:. 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.
132:
98:
93:
102:
85:
354:
Hi. That is true but there is no policy saying
Windows components can skip notability check because they are Windows components. Best regards,
187:
154:
55:. As per the opinion of all but two contributors, who don't make a policy-based argument for their preference of keeping the article.
17:
292:, 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"). --
148:
272:
appear to be accessible in any form other than "snippet view". But some of these "snippet view" results could be excellent
89:
144:
470:
445:
428:
411:
388:
363:
345:
320:
301:
246:
224:
67:
491:
40:
194:
441:
81:
73:
466:
407:
359:
316:
297:
242:
220:
160:
453:
This article is not nominated for merge; in fact, a merger is explicitly opposed in nomination. However,
487:
403:
293:
36:
458:
437:
399:
376:
289:
212:
51:
180:
462:
355:
312:
238:
216:
384:
333:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
486:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
424:
454:
262:
215:
may solve its problem, history shows that has once been merged but its merger is reverted.
341:
273:
258:
58:
208:
204:
276:. For example, based upon what I can glean from the Google Books "snippet view" of
380:
119:
420:
337:
461:
allow merger to be discussed as an alternative to deletion. Best regards,
284:
480:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
211:
says an independent article should have. Although a merge with
115:
111:
107:
179:
280:(1993), the book devotes a chapter to Media Player.
193:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
494:). No further edits should be made to this page.
332:, this piece of software is included with every
257:It seems reasonably probable to me that enough
235:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
233:Note: This debate has been included in the
278:Peter Norton's user's guide to Windows 3.1
232:
268:Unfortunately, few results aside from
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
209:general notability guideline
511:
207:, i.e. does not have what
68:08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
471:22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
446:21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
429:18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
412:15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
389:09:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
364:22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
346:20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
321:22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
302:19:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
247:15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
225:15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
483:Please do not modify it.
203:Hi. This article is not
82:Media Player (Microsoft)
74:Media Player (Microsoft)
32:Please do not modify it.
379:. I'm inclusionist...
400:Windows Media Player
377:Windows Media Player
290:Windows Media Player
213:Windows Media Player
52:Windows Media Player
48:The result was
334:Microsoft Windows
249:
66:
502:
485:
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
63:
56:
34:
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
498:
492:deletion review
481:
438:Unscintillating
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
59:
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
508:
506:
497:
496:
476:
475:
474:
473:
431:
414:
392:
391:
369:
368:
367:
366:
349:
348:
326:
325:
324:
323:
305:
304:
261:exist to meet
251:
250:
230:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
495:
493:
489:
484:
478:
477:
472:
468:
464:
463:Codename Lisa
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
413:
409:
405:
404:Mike Agricola
401:
397:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
370:
365:
361:
357:
356:Codename Lisa
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
327:
322:
318:
314:
313:Codename Lisa
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
294:Mike Agricola
291:
286:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
260:
256:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:Codename Lisa
236:
231:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
217:Codename Lisa
214:
210:
206:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
64:
62:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
482:
479:
450:
433:
416:
395:
372:
329:
277:
269:
254:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
459:WP:CLOSEAFD
434:Speedy keep
336:computer.
167:free images
455:WP:AFD#Top
61:Sandstein
488:talk page
270:InfoWorld
50:merge to
37:talk page
490:or in a
451:Comment:
285:codebase
255:Comment:
126:View log
39:or in a
381:Nixdorf
205:notable
173:WP refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
421:a13ean
263:WP:GNG
145:Google
103:delete
417:Merge
396:Merge
373:Merge
338:Yuffo
274:WP:RS
259:WP:RS
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
467:talk
457:and
442:talk
425:talk
408:talk
385:talk
360:talk
342:talk
330:Keep
317:talk
298:talk
243:talk
221:talk
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
398:to
375:to
195:TWL
124:– (
469:)
444:)
427:)
410:)
387:)
362:)
344:)
319:)
300:)
245:)
237:.
223:)
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
465:(
440:(
423:(
406:(
383:(
358:(
340:(
315:(
296:(
241:(
219:(
199:)
191:·
185:·
177:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:·
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.