Deletion of Media Player (Microsoft)

Comment: It seems reasonably probable to me that enough  exist to meet .  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): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Media+Player%22&hl=en&biw=991&bih=607&sa=X&ei=IkwyUaW4PM-tygHfn4CYAQ&ved=0CCQQpwUoBDgU&source=lnt&tbs=bkv%3Aa%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F31%2F1995&tbm=bks#q=%22Media+Player%22&hl=en&tbs=bkv:a,cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1990,cd_max:1/31/1995&tbm=bks&psj=1  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 .  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. http://books.google.com/books?id=EG9h8f8rHmMC&q=%22Media+Player%22&dq=%22Media+Player%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wEoyUZnlKYaHywHg4IFY&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCDgK.  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: This article is not nominated for merge; in fact, a merger is explicitly opposed in nomination. However, #Top and  allow merger to be discussed as an alternative to deletion. Best regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:CLOSEAFD)