Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grammarly
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grammarly
- Grammarly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article created by a now-blocked sock of a paid editor. The sources don't appear to either meet
WP:RS or establish notability: most are passing mentions, peripherally relevant to the content, blogs, or non-independent of the subject. Article has been deleted previously. EyeSerenetalk 20:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- Sounds like Del, Adv then. Can we see the previous AfD discussion? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were none, otherwise I would probably have speedied it as WP:CSD#G4. The deletion log has one deletion (October 2011) as an expired prod, and another (speedy G11) that happened after the prod was belatedly contested and the article restored. This is all related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pay_for_edits_in_Wikipedia; to save you digging through the links, the editor concerned may have been employed after the previous deletions to create a version of the article that didn't get speedied... or may equally likely be another sock. The current incarnation isn't much better than the previous ones though. EyeSerenetalk 21:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were none, otherwise I would probably have speedied it as
- Sounds like Del, Adv then. Can we see the previous AfD discussion? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"*Keep. I am a user myself and think it's a solid product. 125,000 fans of Grammarly on Facebook are an additional indicator of notability. Librarianmom62 —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: I see no reliable sources about this at all, even with side mentions. In fact, if this software was indeed that significant, it would be covered in reliable sources, so I conclude that this article should be regarded as an advertisement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:59, 15 March 2012 (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.