Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaTeX


 * 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. No consensus for deletion or alternatives and clearly more than just passing mentions. If anyone wants me to reverse the close (for some reason), bring it up on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

KaTeX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A software library. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable sources; the linked sources are blogs. Google News searches yield results about unrelated topics. Could possibly be merged into something related to LaTeX (edit: or to Khan Academy), but I know too little about that topic to suggest a merge destination.  Sandstein  15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the ICMS and SD Times sources that I added to the article after the nomination are sufficiently reliable, in-depth, and independent to pass WP:GNG. (The new TUGboat source is also reliable and independent but not very in-depth.) Also, nominator, did you place a notice of this discussion on the talk pages of your proposed merge targets? I believe this should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is suggested at an AfD, by the nominator or anyone else. To do otherwise risks having an impasse where the consensus at the AfD is to merge but the local consensus at the merge target is to keep the material out. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing is adequate to establish notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per David Eppstein and XOR... above. I also note the google books link is showing for me isbn 1484214641 p215 and the entry is more than a passing statement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't counted that one because I thought it was self-published, but apparently Apress is a legitimate publisher. Ok, add one more source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.