Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRip


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SubRip

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As WP:USEFUL as this software may be, it is not notable -- it lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The sources currently being cited are blogs and chat forums. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Third party sources here:  (I consider the non-forum sections of both of these sites reliable, as they are basically the go-to sites that everyone recommends for video encoding related subjects; I'll accept that this might be a somewhat controversial classification, but I'd say they are reliable for this subject). JulesH (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per the sources provided, as small as they can be.  Marlith  (Talk)   04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like good software, but references to substantial coverage in reliable media? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep References are enough, just needs cleanup and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability in my opinion. "Tutorials" and "Specifications"? No. What's needed are reliable secondary sources. Reyk  YO!  01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above editor, user guides and directory entries are just not good enough for notability. --neon white talk 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a case of "give it a chance"- while notability may not be established, .srt has become a standard for subtitle files in both the legit videophile scene and in fansub/piracy scenes. The former is rather specialized, with most of the major discourse residing in a few discussion forums, while the latter would naturally receive little mainstream attention. I'm sure something significant exists out there. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the multiple relists here are chance enough.  There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete - The article references are not acceptable references as per WP:RS and the software is not notable as per WP:V. The software has not attained any notable level of acceptance and probably never will (since it is kaput). - DustyRain (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The references look like barely enough to establish notability, though I think it's borderline.  Xihr  08:33, 3 December 2008 (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.