Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Typesetting System


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New Typesetting System

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A reimplementation of TeX but no evidence that anybody is using it. Apparently the latest state is an alpha release made in 2000 - not exactly an active project. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   —Oneiros (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - True: Probably nobody is using it. NTS is interesting as a step in the evolution of TeX and as AFAIK the only software project substantially (ca. 75.000€) financed by user groups. And also as an example of a software project gone totally wrong.--Oneiros (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - could you explain how it's "a step in the evolution of TeX"? What came after as a result of having been informed by this project? It just sounds like a dead project that never got very far to begin with, fascinating as the concept may be. J L G 4 1 0 4  13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the first (and only) completely faithful (100%) reimplementation of TeX (in Java). It's slow, but it works. The project started as something else: The idea was to first create a prototype with which various concepts could be tested, and finally a fast implementation of a successor of TeX. Unfortunately the code is hindered by it's license, and the project ended in a political disaster.--Oneiros (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It sounds like it has some sort of historic significance, but I don't know how to make a case for its notability, which I'm guessing will be the challenge here. J L G 4 1 0 4  04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll contact the original authors & the community (I hate this "canvassing"), but in the meantime missing notability alone shouldn't be reason for deletion. I think the article is of interest, but must be improved.--Oneiros (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - on acknowledgement of historial significance, despite possible lack of sources. Frankly, this is one of those cases (it sounds like, to me) that may be reasonably exempted from the typical notability-checking practices, provided the good-faith efforts of Oneiros per above. Indeed, it seems like perhaps an unhealthy trend in AfD to attribute "notability" solely on the basis of clever Google searches, and then to consider inclusion solely on the outcome of such searches. J L G 4 1 0 4  12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : Although NTS is unlikely to be in active use today, it was a very significant milestone in the history of TeX, which is itself one of the most important developments in computer typesetting of the 20th and 21st centuries (to date, of course). Much as the NTS team had hoped that NTS would be widely used, the performance problems referred to in the History section of the main article prevented this from taking place. Disclaimer : the present commentator was a founder member of the NTS Team. Euphuist 14:36, 21 January 2009 (GMT)


 * 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.