Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRip (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

SubRip
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pretty much all the sources here are affiliated, unreliable, or passing mentions. I looked for better ones but didn't find anything I would call RS. It's possible the format is notable but even there I just find mentions, not substantive coverage - but there are sufficient namechecks that this may be a wheat vs. chaff issue. Needless to say, the article is full of personal observations. Guy (help!) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – The software itself has only short namechecks, but the file format is ubiquitous and has short discussions in both in O'Reilly books and scientific journals . It's not major coverage, but it is in my opinion enough to demonstrate notability. Should possibly be renamed to .srt. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – The status of the Wiki page is argueable, but the format itself is very important and deserves an own Wiki page. It is the only format Facebook allows for subtitle upload. In YouTube's list of supported subtitling formats, it is the first entry. Besides that SubRip is also the least common denominator when exchanging web subtitles/closed captions between different subtitling tools/editors. – Basic.Master (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 18:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep: For those not in the know, this is the .txt of subtitle formats. You could hardly write a book about this any more than you could about plain text files, yet we must have articles on both lest Wikipedia turn into a laughingstock regardless of the sourcing; call it WP:IAR if you want. Modernponderer (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know invoking IAR to keep an article with minimal sourcing is a bad look, right? Guy (help!) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:JzG: Because of the very nature of this topic, the sourcing will always be sub-standard. Also because of the nature of this topic, Wikipedia must have an article on it. (Again, cf. text file, which nobody seriously considers deleting despite it being even more woefully undersourced. The major difference is that the average editor is more familiar with those, and thus aware of how ridiculous doing so would be.)
 * Per WP:NOTBURO, it really shouldn't be necessary to cite policy in common-sense cases like this. But if you need one, that's what IAR is for. Modernponderer (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2020 (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.