Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto-Play

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Play

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure whether an article about this subject is needed. Most of the current article is unsourced, with all refs at the bottom citing one assertion, which means that the rest is merely original research. Since this isn't a specific thing, it doesn't do well to meeting WP:GNG, but this is where the guideline bit comes into play. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup. Notable, distinctive, annoying subject. Everybody wants to turn auto-play off :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use some more sources. Notable subject also. Cocohead781 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed that more sources are needed. A quick search found this article from India linking auto-play and net neutrality. Here's an article talking about Google's potential reaction to peoples' frustrations with autoplay.

This term absolutely warrants a definition (and is defined on Wiktionary), and because of controversy and coverage in articles (that should be referenced), it's worthy of inclusion. = paul2520 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't see a good redirect target, which was my first preference here. The article is lousy, but this is almost certainly a notable topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this could become a decent topic, but it needs some work and it needs some direction to avoid violations of WP:ESSAY/WP:OR. It might be worth revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. South Nashua (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2017 (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.