Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubStation Alpha

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 redirect to Subtitles#Subtitle formats. Any content worth merging to the redirect target is available from the article's history. Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SubStation Alpha[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subtitle file format. The article does not establish notability (WP:GNG), and the contents are a mix of WP:NOTHOWTO and a product guide, which we are WP:NOT. The format is already appropriately covered at Subtitles#Subtitle_formats. Sandstein 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I found at least 2 mentions of it on google, which just meet the requirements. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — WngLdr34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Darshak.parmar (talk · contribs). [reply]
And these sources are? Sandstein 13:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1]https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140002618

and

[2]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-2496-0_26

For two? Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not establish sufficient notability. The NASA paper - an "internship final report" - does not discuss the SSA file format at all, but only mentions it in passing in a comparison of subtitling software. It is also not published in a journal with editorial oversight, making it not a reliable source. The second reference - the chapter "Subtitles and Closed Captions" in the book "Linux Sound Programming" - dedicates two pages to the topic, of which one page are a screenshot and a code example. If we accept the second reference as substantial coverage, this still leaves us without the multiple sources required by GNG. Sandstein 15:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not clear why there are the tables in this article - they seem to cover the general area of subtitling and if so don't belong here. I do find a minor thesis that is primarily about this software, and others that describe using it in projects: here and here and there are others. Lamona (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the "Linux Sound Programming" coverage above, and a bachelor's thesis is not an appropriate source because it will not have been professionally reviewed. Sandstein 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein I must admit to being unsure. This may be a defunct file format, as many of the references I see are from a decade or more ago. What really puzzles me is that this file format never seems to have been formally standardized, yet it was recognized by video software. I find many articles referencing it (but just saying they use it) particularly in articles about translation, accessibility, and large-scale captioning analysis. I would feel better about deleting this if there was some reference point that could be added to SSA in the chart in Subtitles. My weak keep may be leaning now to delete. I'll check back. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a specification for SSA. Though like with its successor, ASS (SSA 4v+) I would assume in practice the spec is whatever VSFilter does since most subtitles were authored to that.

I would be for reworking the article to be the other way around, focusing on ASS instead of SSA. SSA has been defunct for many years, while ASS is the de facto standard for fansubbing and specifically anime fansubbing with active development still happening. 141.70.45.1 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Lamona (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the sources provided by Lamona.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 19:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would argue that the 'delete' arguments are far stronger here, but unfortunately a lack of participation has hampered support for that viewpoint. One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I am not seeing enough here for stand-alone notability, but this should be at minimum redirected somewhere if not merged. Unfortunately, we don't have an article about Subtitle file formats, just Category:Subtitle file formats. I am inclinded to say this should be closed with a note "merge to such article when it is created"... PS. I checked everything in "what links here" and I can't think of a reasonable redirect target, even as a placeholder, better than List_of_file_formats#Archive_and_compressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is sensible, but why not to Subtitles#Subtitle formats? Sandstein 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.