Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep timer

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 merge to Time switch. Most editors agreed that due to the nature of the subject, it would be difficult to expand this article with information beyond a stub, so its content would be better suited in the context of the related topic at Time switch. Mz7 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep timer

[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)

WP:DEL-REASON Policies 7/8, sources on the topic appear to talk about sleep timer functionality in just certain contexts (eg. how to enable the iPhone sleep timer). The apparent lack of sources covering the concept in a broad overview implies that either this article should be deleted, with the existence of a sleep timer being mentioned in the articles of things that have a sleep timer (eg. Spotify), or I have no clue how Wikipedia works. Benica11 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Benica11 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Benica11 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Benica11 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge I recall an editor worrying about topics are that are so simple and commonplace that it's hard to find detailed sources. His example was the egg slicer but this topic seems similar. I take the nominator's point but Google seems to have over 4 million hits for the phrase and it's difficult to go through them all to find the sort of general or historical material that the nominator would prefer. But there's certainly lots written about the difficulty that people have going to sleep and a sleep timer is a reasonable aspect of that. Another broad topic that we might merge into is time switch. Overall, the key point is that our core policy WP:V just requires sources for statements that are controversial or quotations and this stub seems to be neither. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- agree that the article seems weirdly difficult to get beyond a stub. But having a stub for a basic concept is also important. matt91486 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time switch. While I certainly see this as a concept that can be worth a mention, I don't think it needs a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 05:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time switch - the article has no references and so fails WP:GNG - as it stands, the article provides only a definition of the Sleep timer, WP:NOTDICTIONARY - on these grounds I would say delete, but as it is a type of time switch, a merge to that article seems reasonable - but can we merge unsourced content? - if no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources can be found, the article should be deleted - Epinoia (talk) 02:25, 16 September 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.