The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiTeX[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiTeX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The WikiText extension (mw:Extension:WikiTeX) has never been a part of Wikipedia, the devs have rejected requests to install it for 10 years, and the extension is now not maintained. It isnt notable, and it is not a Wikipedia feature (past, present or future), so it doesnt belong in Project space. I recommend we delete the Project space page , and redirect WikiTeX to MusiXTeX, which notes the WikiTeX project briefly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Replacing the contents of the page with a note saying the extension isn't installed, and a soft redirect to mw:Extension:WikiTeX, could inform people who come looking for this better than a note in the deletion log. —rybec 23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion log entry is shown any time someone lands on our deleted page. There are hundreds of extensions that were not accepted by the Wikimedia sysadmins. Maybe the ~10 local mentions of this software are enough to justify a Wikipedia project page, but that seems like a bad precedent to me. Anyone looking for WikiTeX using a search engine will be taken to useful pages like http://wikitex.org and the mediawiki extension page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have striken my suggestion regarding the mainspace WikiTeX redirect, as this software is much bigger than MusiXTeX, including chemistry, maths, charts/plots, chess & go, etc, etc. Ideally we would have an real article about the topics involved here (http://wikisofia.org, http://modtex.org and http://wikitex.org) but I can't find evidence of notability for any of them. In April 2006 user:Nightstallion moved it to project space, and user:Cyde deleted the WP:CNR. The CNR was recreated by User:Tosha in March 2009. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone thinks it's notable enough to be an article, then please go ahead and write one. But until that happens, I'm going ahead and deleting it as a cross-namespace redirect because, well, it clearly is one. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical I don't see the harm. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Delete Then again, I don't see the harm in deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was actually a mainspace article and was moved to WP space (see its talk page); it's still written as such. The mediawiki page for it is sufficient. It had no history on Wikipedia proper, so I don't see why marking as historical would be beneficial. One could put a WP:soft redirect to the mw page in its place, which is done for Wikipedia:Texvc—the TeX module actually used in Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.