Talk:Orfogrammka

This article was tagged for speedy deletion under section a7 of the criteria for speedy deletion but a reviewing administrator or uninvolved experienced editor (DESiegel (talk)) declined the request on the basis that: this is apparently software, not web content, so out of scope for A7. This article should not be tagged again for speedy deletion under the same criterion and, unless a valid, separate speedy deletion basis exists, further attempts at deleting this article should be made via the proposed deletion process (prod) if uncontroversial, or the article taken to articles for deletion (AfD) for debate on the merits.

Note: this template should be removed once the associated article has survived an AfD debate; or has been significantly changed such that further speedy deletion requests are unlikely.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Orfogrammka is actually of significant importance in the Russian-language writing sphere. The problem is that unlike English, not a lot of effort has been put into these grammar and style tools. This has led to this product being one of the very few tools that exist and is by far the most powerful and important one. The commercial version of this product is also used in Russian media outlets - because again, it is the only tool available. I believe this article has as much importance and weight as the article for English equivalent, Grammarly.

If you have found a specific issue with the article itself and not the lack of notability (because I vehemently disagree), please let me know or feel free to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmarAssadi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards, OmarAssadi (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy, OmarAssadi, but notability is not well established yet.

Remember on Wikipedia, notability is established primarily though significant discussion by independent reliable sources. Sources cites should not be via google translate URLs. Non-English-language sources are ok, but if you use the citation templates there is a parameter for a translated quote. In any case, provide title and other bibliographic info, not just a URL. See Referencing for Beginners and WP:CITE for details. DES ^(talk) 20:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~) DES ^(talk) 20:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

If this article is about the software, as it seems to be, it should not use {{Infobox dot-com company}} but rather {{Infobox software}} or something similar. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the information! I'll go ahead and switch that up when I have some time later - assuming no one else has. Also, clarification: the article is about a software tool, yes. However, the primary interface for it is also typically accessed via the web-browser. See: this screenshot I uploaded for an example of the page when logged in. With that information, my question is: is "Infobox software" the best choice? By the way: I had copied the initial structure from the Grammarly page and both products function almost identically. So, this issue will probably also persist there. OmarAssadi (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source citations

I see that you are using {{cite web}} with the |trans-title= parameter. This is good. Thank you.

But it would be helpful to use |quote= to give a (translated) brief quote indicating exactly what the source says about the subject. It would also be helpful to provide such bibliographic data as the work (web site), the author, the publisher, and the publication date. sometimes the publisher is redundant with the name of the work (when the source is The New York Times, listing the publisher as "New York Times co" adds nothing), and sometimes the author and date are simply not available. But listing at least the work or the publisher (whichever is most useful) and such other data as is available would be very helpful. DES ^(talk) 22:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about the quotes! I don't know how I missed that parameter. When I have some time later, I'll go ahead and add the remaining things to the citations if no one else has. Best regards, OmarAssadi (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]