Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShareLaTeX

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShareLaTeX

[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)

Came here via a Teahouse question asking about Overleaf (a similar service who bought ShareLaTeX). The problem is notability. There does not seem to be any sources meeting WP:NSOFT: the only non-dead, non-primary ref is [1] and it is a passing mention. You can find a couple tutorials and institution announcements (e.g. CERN) about the software but nothing that would qualify as in-depth coverage AFAICT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)~~ - removed by David Eppstein[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG; nn as a WP:NSOFT either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ShareLaTeX is widely used in academia. According to a reliable source such as TechCrunch they are well known. I might consider moving it into Draft:Overleaf because they have been sold and make this article a redirect in the future, but for now keep it. Streepjescode (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part of that article reads, in full, Elsewhere, he [Alberto Pepe] lists Sharelatex.com and Writelatex.com as two “well-known competitors” for disciplines like physics and mathematics, where scientists use the LaTeX scientific documentation format to author their papers. Not only is this a passing mention, but it is not even TechCrunch's opinion that ShareLaTeX is "well-known". (FWIW Overleaf is "well-known" in the labs I went through in recent years, but it does not mean it should have a Wikipedia article.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doesn't meet NSOFT standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep techcrunch source is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be multiple reliable sources. Anyway, WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says TechCrunch isn't good for determining notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage, it's all PR and WP:MILL announcements. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2020 (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.