Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PdfTeX


 * 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. John254 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PdfTeX

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 talk 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Usable notable program. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suggest you drop all your AfDs, as you obviously don't know how to measure external notability. This is the standard TeX engine in use today. What makes you think it's not notable?--Oneiros 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that this is notable? Where is the evidence this "is the standard TeX engine in use today"?  Where is any evidence this meets any of the notability criteria?  I will happily WP:SNOW this as a keeper if someone would kindly provide some evidence to back these claims up.--Isotope23 talk 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I emphasized this point. I think that the references could be improved, but I don't know if we need more links to the books in the LaTeX Companions series.  You seem to ask that the article meet WP:V here.  This is different from WP:N & no less important, but I think there are better ways to ask for citations to be added to articles. --Karnesky 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm asking for is verifiable, reliable sources that demonstrate notability. I don't question the verifiability of the existence of PdfTex, but as of right now there is insufficient evidence of notability.--Isotope23 talk 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How is being the backend of all current major TeX distributions not significant enough to make it notable? This is now indicated in the article & two webpages (CTAN & the UK TeX FAQ) are given as sources.  It'd be nice to have even better sources, but I think that the claim is clearly verifiable & clearly asserts notability! --Karnesky 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made that comment before I saw your additions. Let me review for a bit; I might be open to withdrawing the nomination.--Isotope23 talk 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence: Fire up a recent (2005++) TeX installation and check which engine it uses. Surprise: pdfTeX. E.g. MikTeX & TeXlive use it as default.--Oneiros 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That constitutes WP:OR. However, documentation certainly exists that contains this information. --Karnesky 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The references are there now. Please do WP:SNOW.--Oneiros 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep notable TeX engine. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.  -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy  22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep pdftex is notable, as it is described in MANY articles & books & is included in many software distros. --Karnesky 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen  20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep TeX is very widespread, especially fo publishing in academic environment and PdfTex is notable TeX engine. Many LaTeX classes depend on it, like Beamer (LaTeX). --Mpx 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The evidence of notability has been resolved in this discussion. Yamaguchi先生 00:09, 16 September 2007 (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.