Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathcha


 * 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mathcha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software. It is hard even to find it by Google search, although documentation does exist on YouTube. (Google search also finds a captcha package with the same name, also non-notable.) No third-party discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep! Is any thing that is written on this article is consider wrong? If it is a potential website that actually worthy to take a look by the community? We all know that we don't have a strong WYSIWYG math editor compared to TeX and it is not easy to type math online without learning TeX. Not like other services, software can prove itself worthy or not by normal people, you can not cheat if it is bad software. For example, Does Mathcha consider a strong and best WYSIWYG math editor? Give it a chance before you remove this article for non-notable software that still not exist on google search because it is too new? We don't judge a software by google engine right? If anyone can prove this software is useless - Please feel free to prove it here.
 * Take a look at this wiki post Ket_(software), please explain how a page can improve better than quickly decide to remove it permanently.
 * Also see on TeX Stack to understand more.
 * Also see on Hacker News Hacker News  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamtudethuong (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Must know the difference between TeX compile online tool and WYSIWYG math editor (We almost don't have good WYSIWYG math editor)

Following i will quote wiki policy:wiki policy


 * It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.
 * An article that looks inappropriate may simply have been tampered with; you can fix this by reverting it to the better, previous version.
 * If the article duplicates another, you can redirect it to the other one; there's no need for it to be deleted first.
 * It's polite to let the article's author know that you are asking for it to be deleted; you can find them in the page history.

Thamtudethuong (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This essay explains core problem of the article: WP:TOOSOON. Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree! It is so true soon+non-notable..., but still consider worthy of notice, so please reconsider base on other factors, if anyone really want to delete it, I accept without debating (That is why our opinions is more than rules, why we have this page for deciding) Thamtudethuong (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One of Wikipedia's core tenets is Notability. As there is no coverage of Mathcha, sadly it can't really have an article. But you can think of it as of yet, that maybe it can have an article in the future once coverage has been attained. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 01:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry to the developers, but no coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new software item. Regarding the comments above, whether something is worthy or useful is not the issue here. As it is, there is no substantial 3rd party coverage which can demonstrate it to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete borders on G11 as unambiguous advertising. No value to the project and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2017 (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.