Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opt in

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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opt in

[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)

Poorly written article, unencyclopedic. Apparently imported from Wiktionary, which doesn't seem acceptable. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wiktionary entry is sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect – I agree the article in its current form is not good and needs to either be cleaned up or reverted back to the Wiktionary redirect. I will comment that we have Opt-out, Opting out, and Opt-out (politics), and because of this is seems reasonable that we should have an "Opt-in" article as well, even if it's just the Wiktionary redirect. (Side note: Opt-in redirects to Opt-in email; I would clean this up to redirect to to Opt in but will wait until the outcome of this deletion discussion.) —danhash (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: As it stands there is nothing here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly not a vehicle for unsourced dictionary entries. HOWEVER, I went to check a reference on the article above this (Alfie Best Jnr) and bailed out when the page went dark and I had to "opt-in" to receive cookies to view the page, I could go to "manage cookies" but the end result would have been to accept the cookies (opt-in) or maybe add an exception that is still an "opt-in" so I bailed out. This is a form of forced direct marketing campaigns that I disdain and a possible reason why coverage might be interesting. I would think and support possibly changing the title of Opt-in email to Opt-in services, Opt-in options or something like this, to cover all forms of related branches. The only reason it wouldn't now fit is simply because of the title but there is content that would fit (the email part). If this is covered under a title I did not come across then coverage or a redirect there might prove beneficial. I would like to see some coverage of this and content would be relevant for a subsection in HTTP cookie#Setting a cookie but that article does not appear to me to be for the general reader. Anyway, this is just something I ran into and maybe a plausible idea. Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 20 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.