Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaTeX2RTF


 * 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 LaTeX. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

LaTeX2RTF

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment LaTeX2HTML falls into a similar category of lack of reliable sources. I'm not sure if even a merge to LaTeX is called for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. Article lacks 3rd party RS refs. A search reveals no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to LaTeX. There are many sources out there describing LaTeX2RTF, but as typical with much open-source software, none of the sources I could find are the traditional, WP:RS reliable sources needed for notability. But LaTeX2RTF is a core program of most if not all TeX distributions; it is reasonable that users could search for this term. LaTeX2RTF is already mentioned in the LaTeX section, so a redirect seems appropriate. While the article was created by a not-quite SPA editor, that editor's last contribution to the article was in 2006 and other editors have worked in the article since then. --Mark viking (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong Keep. It deserves it's own article. The software is over a decade old and is a established part of the LaTeX subsystem. It's a type of software which is not really discussed by anybody, so it will be difficult to establish standard sources. But nevertheless, since LaTeX is a standard in Academia, it's likely this software is very well used everywhere in the western world. I think it's clearly notable.   scope_creep (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Redirect We have reliable sources, it is just that they are primary sources, and so don't satisfy WP:GNG.  Arguing that this topic satisfies WP:N, as being "worthy of notice", might be done along with identifying good factoring as a desirable principle for the encyclopedia, perhaps better recognized among software design topics than in the general encyclopedia.  The biggest problem with merge is that someone would need to do it, and we already have a working solution in place.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a couple similarly named LaTeX to RTF converters out there, and both of them have attracted coverage in digital typography journals such as TUGboat and The PracTeX Journal.  ltx2rtf (by Fernando Dorner and Andreas Granzer) is the subject of a TUGboat article and (IIRC) has been cited from time to time thereafter, and latex2rtf (not sure of the authors) has been frequently mentioned in both journals, though I'm not sure about the extent of coverage.  —Psychonaut (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - Nothing notable/lacks RS for it's own article. Belongs on page about company or main product. Caffeyw (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2013 (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.