Talk:WRBD

Second Reviewer Note
User:AngusWOOF, User:FloridaArmy - I don't have any background in this matter, but am willing to try to mediate the acceptance dispute. Do you want to try mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's a matter of whether radio formats for certain periods deserve their own articles. I think we need WP:RADIO to answer that. That's why I suggested the split proposal rather than just boldly splitting it.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the offer. I think it's premature. User:AngusWOOF has refused to explain why the very substantial coverage over decades including whole articles about the station in the Florida Sentinel and coverage in books don't establish notability. He's said a discussion should take place whether it should be noted solely in an entry on an unrelated informercial station but hasn't explained any reasoning why that would be appropriate. I've pointed to sources noting the station as influential, popular, and pi9neering but haven't gotten any response on why those descriptors don't establish notability. I think before any intervention or further rejection is received from AngusWOOF he really needs to take a dee0 breath and explain why he doesn't think this subject is indeoendently notable and why he thinks it should be covered only as a subsection on an article on an unrelated other than being a successor to the broadcadt rights informercial station. It's also worthnoting that the station also had an FM station and was significant in the careers of various broadcasters, musicians, and station managers. It was heard in Florida and the Bahamas. I don't see any case for non-inclusion as an independent entry for a decades long station of this level of popularity and influence. If there is one let's hear it. Should this entry be expanded and fleshed out? Of course. But that's not just on me to do. Notability is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaArmy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 November 2020‎ (UTC)


 * The WP:BURDEN is on the creator to supply references to show independent notability, but it still depends on WP:RADIO to decide whether a separate format should have its own article. Looking at radio stations in California, there are ones that have had different formats for decades such as KGMZ-FM as KKHI before their current ones. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging WP:RADIO to chime in on this. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Maybe I am paying too much attention to procedures, but it appears to me that both of you are pushing this very hard and that someone, preferably both of you, needs to back off a little. User:AngusWOOF - You Rejected this draft. In fact, you rejected it as Contrary to the Purpose of Wikipedia. That seems extreme, even if you don't think it is notable independently. First, why did you reject it rather than declining it to request improvement? Second, what is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? User:FloridaArmy - You appear to have resubmitted the draft after rejection. Rejection is supposed to be final, and resubmission after rejection is not supposed to just be done by resubmission. At a minimum, it should be discussed rather than just resubmitted. I think I understand that you resubmitted it because you don't think that it should have been rejected. We need to get this resolved. I suggest that the first step is that I will delete the rejection and the resubmission, and leave the article submitted, waiting for review, and that we leave it submitted until there are comments at WT:RADIO. Are the two of you agreeable to a truce in this fashion? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , it was tendentiously resubmitted multiple times without improvement, prompting rejection. Anyway, I'm attempting the split proposal method, which is what it should have gone through in the first place. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only in the most recent edits since that rejection that has bothered to list multiple book references to the radio station.  I'm okay with dropping the stick and putting it back on AFC and letting another reviewer deal with this, but it would be good to know whether there should be a precedent in WP:RADIO to go ahead and separate radio formats from the overall radio station history as its own article.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

On air talent
This fellow worledfor the station. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts
I have looked this over again, and I have removed the rejection and the resubmission, which leaves this in a a state of having been submitted and waiting for a reviewer, again. If I had been the first reviewer, I probably would have done much what User:AngusWOOF did. That is, User:FloridaArmy really was being unproductively stubborn. This draft was submitted three times (submission and two resubmissions) in the span of two hours, with no effort to discuss, only tweaks and resubmission. User:FloridaArmy - You were really pushing your luck in resubmitting twice in two hours, especially for an editor who has already been sanctioned more than once for submitting a lot of stubs and being uncivil about it. Were you trying to find a different reviewer? Do you think that we, the reviewers, don't read the history of drafts? The only real difference if I had been the reviewer is that I would not have said Contrary to the Purpose of Wikipedia, but only Not Notable, and that I would provided longer comments (because I always provide overly long comments).

Now. We can wait for the split discussion or the comments from WikiProject Radio. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. There were two Florida Sun Sentinel articles cited entirely about the station with very in depth coverage. And I added further sources each time. The notability is overwhelmong. The idea that the content doesn't belong on Wikipedia is absurd and wrong on every level. Even if ithe entry is to be merged to an article on a different station that succeeded it, the appropriate action would still be to accept it first and then merge. This is editing 101. It was resubmitted because it was clearly absolutely 100% inarguably notable as I've explained in some detail above. If you think I'm wrong by all means take it to AfD and explain why the first radio station in South Florida for African Americams that existed for decades and is well documented as influential shouldn't be included. Your statemwnt is outrageous and absurd. I've been throufh this nonsense many times before. It's moronic. Be better. And while you're at it Rob take your request to have an admin hist merge some other article where all you had produced was a redirect to a list article. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging from WP:RADIO who was handling a similar merge request.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose separate article/split. No one is arguing that the content of this article does not belong on Wikipedia, only that it should not be a separate article from WWNN. Longstanding consensus has been that we have one article per station, and despite the changes in ownership, call sign, and format, WRBD is the same station as WWNN and WPOM. The only exceptions that would be warranted is if a station's intellectual property has been on multiple frequencies and if this could support a substantial article, properly sourced with high quality sources. This does not meet that criteria, as the subject of this draft only existed on 1470 (the station that is now WWNN), and the content in this draft barely clears stub status. It could easily be included in WWNN's article. I have posted a notice of this discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose separate article. I have an essay (User:Raymie/One or Two) on this very topic. For one license to cover multiple articles, I typically need to see some combination of the following:
 * A lengthy off-air period
 * A change in channel number or frequency
 * A change in call sign
 * A relocation of facilities, or indeed of the entire station
 * Some other substantial change in the method of operation


 * Those articles, especially in the radio business, are quite few and far between. (KUWL (Alaska) sticks out here, but most of its reasons are not generalizable.) The one in question does not rise to this standard. The content in this section should be incorporated into the WRBD section at WWNN.


 * , we are not saying this content doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Not at all! What we are saying is that in WikiProject Radio Stations, we have standardized around a rule of one article to a license, and to accept this draft breaks that rule, which we do not ignore except in the most compelling of circumstances. Also, I want to note I have newspapers.com access and should be able to turn up even more, as I have for other South Florida stations this year—including WHSR, the former WWNN. Raymie (t • c) 18:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated some of this content and additional material to WWNN. Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't see enough information to justify a split in the article. If there was a TON of information for WRBD's time on the air, then yes.  But the two paragraphs and two sentences don't justify a split. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:52 on November 25, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Merge and delete
If the merge is to stand, per Merge and delete this entry a proper merge needs to be done. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved the talk page to Talk:WRBD since the discussion is worth preserving. Can an admin do the close and action to merge? AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)