Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto-Latex Equations

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Latex Equations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created without going through AFC process and likely by someone affiliated with the topic. There are no notable or third-party sources. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Nature source is notable, third-party, and reliable, but it is not in-depth. I don't think it's enough by itself for WP:GNG, and my searches didn't find anything else. Tellingly, the content about this product in the Nature source that is somewhat negative (the equations are inserted as images, rather like the bad way that Wikipedia handles mathematics, rather than as MathJax or other methods that can treat equation text properly as text) is entirely omitted from this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the sources in the article nor anything else I can turn up qualifies as in-depth coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the product is used in school settings per the sources already on the page, it does not appear to be the subject of instruction in that environment. So, the product does not meet WP:NSOFT. Also, I could not find significant coverage beyond Nature and these mentions: [1], [2]. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only good RS here is the article in Nature ... but searching I can't see anything else. Doesn't establish WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.