Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grammarly (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarly[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)

This article is mainly promotional, with very little encyclopedic content. It heavily resembles spam/promotional content. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 12:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. See for instance: "Japos, Genaro V. "Effectiveness of coaching interventions using grammarly software and plagiarism detection software in reducing grammatical errors and plagiarism of undergraduate researches." JPAIR Institutional Research 1.1 (2013): 97-109.", "Qassemzadeh, Abolfazl, and Hassan Soleimani. "The impact of feedback provision by grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6.9 (2016): 1884-1894.", "Dembsey, J. M. "Closing the Grammarly® gaps: a study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program." The Writing Center Journal (2017): 63-100.", "Darayani, Nisrin Adelyna, Laksnoria Laksnoria Karyuatry, and Muhammad Dhika Arif Rizqan. "GRAMMARLY AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’WRITING QUALITY." Edulitics (Education, Literature, and Linguistics) Journal 3.1 (2018): 36-42.", etc. etc. If this short article is overly promotional (and it doesn't appear all that bad to me - a bit too much fluff perhaps - but not TNT) - it should be rectified in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - Can the article be improved? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP – The Grid (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, as The Grid said. EggRoll79 said that the article is mostly promotional. I don't think this is a deletion reason. As for the topic itself, I find it to be very notable with there being more than 10 reliable refs already. It definitely needs cleanup, but AfD isn't cleanup. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 14:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree that there are 10 reliable references. Several of the currently cited references appear to be Forbes.com contributor pieces, which are considered unreliable (see WP:RSP). Other pieces are published by Grammarly inc., or appear on news release sites. I assume the pieces in The Hindu and Korea Times are more reliable, but each includes only a passing mention in articles about online writing aids generally. Cnilep (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NSOFT and the article is not G11-promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really dont see any promotional content at all. It has a fairly even keel, to be honest. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ... I am plagued by adverts for this product but more seriously the answer is to improve rather than delete. If its deleted it will be back sometimes risking apparent copy violations. I have confidence in others searches that there are reliable sources, I have no confidence in this nomination.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above, AFD is not cleanup — plenty of sources can also be procured on this subject. It's notable. --ElKabong888 (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I have received adverts for this service, and it is frequently discussed at the educational institution I attend as well — not valid reasons to retain or delete this article, but worth noting. --ElKabong888 (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely notable, per above comments --Plaxie (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Getting coverage. It mentions the security breach, which a biased article would not. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is no longer a promotional piece. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2019 (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.