Talk:Imitext

Untitled
This article was originally promoted as suitable for deletion on the grounds of non-notability and vanity....

From wikipedia gudelines: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, an article about a little-known [technology] should not automatically be taken as a vanity article." Further I do not believe this article presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the associates of the author - but rather to contain simple verifiable facts.

Interestingly I note that the main subtitling article Subtitle contains a bitmap image labelled Production of teletext subtitles - which is a screen shot of a commercial product.... does this also contradict vanity guidelines?

Further, I note two similar entries on the Captioning page Closed_captioning that might be classed as vanity in a similar manner to my entry.....

"Probably the best-known closed captioning option for theaters is the Rear Window Captioning System from the National Center for Accessible Media ......... A company called Cinematic Captioning Systems has a similar reflective system called Bounce Back."

However, I am perfectly happy to edit the article such that it may remain and would welcome guidance on how to do so. The article was submitted simply to increase the comprehensiveness of the subtitling coverage of Wikipedia. Subtitling is NOT a niche or minority interest - it impacts almost every country in the world and many TV viewers - particularly where subtitling is used for translation purposes.

It has now been re-proposed for deletion on the basis of non-notability. That seems a far more subjective criteria! One man's 'notable' is another's 'irrelevant' - why should non-notability be a criteria for deletion - in the absence of vanity or abuse etc. In terms of the broadcasters who use subtitling systems, the distinction between different formats are notable. I do notice that there seems to be a certain over zealous use of deletion to remove what are basically factual entries within Wikipedia... is this truly a useful attitude that will encourage growth?

As I have previously stated, I am happy to edit this article or merge it, given guidance on how to do so to make it acceptable - which neither deletion proposal has offered... I do not however see how it violates either vanity or 'notability' guidelines. Should the content of this article (which is admittedly very small and 'stub') move to the main article? Is it more appropriate to add this information as an edit into the main subtitle article?

sincerely J. Birch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnBirch (talk • contribs).