Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Roku boxes

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 Roku. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Roku boxes

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

This page is a POVsplit created by a user that was canvassed[1]to Roku. This seems to have been created with the express purpose of WP:FORUMSHOPPING the discussion in the yet to be closed rfc (at Roku) here. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WP:POVSPLIT, I created it as a summary-style split aimed at keeping Roku focused and to avoid WP:UNDUE.

The WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASSING accusations are unsubstantiated and have little to no bearing on whether or not this article should be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are substantiated. The link I provided links to the canvass you came from. Forumshopping though, I note I used the word seem. I wonder what the use of the word seem could suggest in the English language? The evidence again in the provided link. Now people can look at the RFC that has now been closed and see that creating a POVsplit to bring the conversation to AFD was never necessary as the closed RFC shows a consensus to keep. And BTW, being a POVsplit is the reason that it should be deleted. POVsplit, as in improper content fork. The canvassing and all was why this was created.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the list makes the Roku article undue and there is no reason for a size split. This is simply a POVsplit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any modifications to the well-established material I copied from Roku history to create this article. If it is a POV slit then the only POV I could be accused of bringing is a belief that the material should be kept. Yes, I beleive the material should be kept. I have now !voted as such below. ~Kvng (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On an interesting note, I have not suggested that anything was modified. It's a POVfork because was specifically created to make an end run around the consensus making process. There's a great semantics argument there but I'm actually interested in talking about nothing with you. You created article lacks notability to exist separately from it's parent article. There is no actual justification for your split. There's no present undue weight. No reason for a size split. There's not even a reason for you end tun around the consensus making process. The result of the RFC as closed by an actual uninvolved editor was to keep. Funny how the consensus making process can seem to work even when there are super heros campaigned into save the day for a noob.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:IINFO, and lack of secondary sources cited. Mdann52 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing in line with RfC result. Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think WP:IINFO applies here. There are many All pages with titles beginning with Comparison of articles on Wikipedia. What specifically makes this one worthy of deletion? I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here, just requesting more specifics on why you consider this information indiscriminate; None of the examples at WP:IINFO seem to directly apply here.

I count 12 independent sources on this article. That does not square with your claim of no secondary sources. Please help me understand this discrepancy. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains useful information that is appropriate for Wikipedia and supported by a variety of reliable sources. These attributes make it irrelevant whether the article is perceived to be the result of a WP:POVSPLIT or WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Lambtron (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains information that is useful for readers. Damicatz (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a WP:POVSPLIT (see comments above). Consensus to keep this material has recently been reached at Talk:Roku#RfC:_Should_the_Feature_comparison_table_be_restored.3F. It is well sourced, has ample indications of notability and NPOV. Allegations of WP:CANVASSING (the bad kind) and WP:FORUMSHOPPING are untrue and irrelevant to the fate of this article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roku. Consensus indicates that the table should be included in the Roku article per the RfC. While probably not a POV Split as it is neutral, it is still an unacceptable WP:SPINOFF as "[Summary style splits] must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." This article is the embodiment of evading the consensus process:

Above discussion [the RfC] does not appear to be converging. I have created Comparison of Roku boxes with content deleted from this article. If this is not a satisfactory solution, let's continue the discussion at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that the RfC was not even closed when this article was created. Kvng made the article with the express purpose of going around the consensus-making process and to move the discussion of the content from the active RfC to here at AFD. The RfC process found consensus that the table should be included in the Roku article. Because of that consensus says the table, and that the split was an attempt to evade that very process, the page should be merged into Roku and this page redirected or deleted. Wugapodes (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question posed in this AfD is whether or not Comparison of Roku boxes should be deleted. Perhaps it would be best to address that by declaring a keep/delete preference here and then later, when this AfD is closed, creating a merge proposal at one of the affected articles (Roku or Comparison of Roku boxes). That would avoid a potentially confusing mingling of two different proposals. Lambtron (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a binary discussion, per WP:DISCUSSAFD a number of stances are common including merge, redirect, and I've even seen userfy a number of times (but mostly at MfD). This is reinforced by Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes which shows that a number of possibilities exist beyond the keep/delete binary. Wugapodes (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did anything wrong and I have no opinion about merging; I was merely suggesting that we avoid concurrent merge discussions in different places. Lambtron (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If discussion here results in a Keep consensus, we can always do a merge back into Roku later as a separate step. Those advocating Keep should not feel like this position excludes the possibility of getting the material back into Roku. ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense -- it didn't occur to me that an AfD Keep consensus would make a later merge impossible. I see now why it's useful to have two separate discussions about merging (though I'm unsure about which discussion I should spent time on). Lambtron (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a reader's perspective, Roku and Comparison of Roku boxes are in pretty good shape at the moment. Edit wars are over. More discussion is probably not necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually make merge discussions in a different place. And instead of voting for keep if you feel it necessary to merge you simply just vote merge. And since the RFC at Roku ended with a consensus to keep the table, crazy enough, the material would have to go back in the article in the event of a delete vote.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural merge back to main article and continue to work it out on its talk page. No need to have this conversation in two places. I recommend keeping the discussion on topic. czar 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Consensus indicated that the table should be included in the Roku article per the RfC. After merger, additional appropriate discussion, if any, can take place on its own talk page. This article's creation was improvident. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep reasonable split and both articles have grown since the split. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (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.