- 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. ✗ plicit 12:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
WRND (disambiguation)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- WRND (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Open and shut WP:2DABS case - specifically, WP:ONEOTHER. There is one primary topic ( WRND), and the only other related page WQEZ is linked from a hatnote. Taking it to AfD because the PROD tag was removed without explanation. schetm ( talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. schetm ( talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. schetm ( talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
*Keep: Yet another PROD/AfD jumping of the gun from someone who, just recently, started editing radio station articles. This is how we do things at NMEDIA (currently). I'd invite people to ask first or, ya know, LEARN before going off half-cocked and nom'ing everything under the sun for PROD or AfD. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- With respect, I've been editing this topic off and on for three years, and with even less regularity going back almost my entire decade plus here. I do know my way around. At any rate, WP:NMEDIA, as an explanatory supplement to WP:N, has absolutely no bearing on a disambiguation page. Per WP:WHYN, (notability guidelines) "do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages)" schetm ( talk) 07:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Whatever the ideas of one particular project, this is not how disambiguation pages work. It is not needed (and is wrongly formatted, for the case where there exists a primary topic). Pam D 07:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The nominator's statement accurately reflects the relevant guideline, WP:ONEOTHER. This has nothing to do with radio stations as such: disambiguations are always unnecessary when there's a primary topic and when a hatnote would suffice, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A look at FCCdata's call sign search shows that three stations have used this call sign in the last 40 years, the two entries on this dabpage and a short-lived station that could either be part of the same hatnote or potentially part of another article (WRND, Manchester, New Hampshire, owned by Notre Dame College (New Hampshire) and on the air for just three years). NMEDIA is not a style guide, nor should any style guide particular to radio topics prevent the application of encyclopedia-wide guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. We have a long history of transitional disambiguation pages after a call sign change, followed a couple of years later by putting a hatnote on the article with the base call sign and moving it over top of the disambiguation page if the disambiguation page only has two entries. I've done those moves myself, conservatively, 100 times, and I have another three dozen or more on my "get around to it someday" list.
Mlaffs (
talk) 04:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm replying here for the main purpose of explaining why our naming conventions and page moves have to be so darn arcane in US radio for non-topic editors.Imagine, if you will, that there are several people (first names only), and every first name is unique. One day, John decides he'd like to become Joe. We move the page at John to Joe. Not long after, or several years later, Jimmy decides to become John. We might have a "John (disambiguation)" page, especially if a lot of people have been John over the years or people might be looking for John only to learn that there's a new John and they're looking for someone now named James.Or imagine that John dies and someone else becomes John, and the dead person needs to be disambiguated because current call sign holders are presumptively a primary topic. We used to just have lots of articles like "John (defunct)", which was an MOS violation and was starting to create some bad edge cases, so in 2019 the priority order enshrined in User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming was implemented.Or we have John AM and John FM, and "John" was a disambiguation page until John AM became Jack (this case), plus there was a dead John we don't have an article on. (That's this case.)Every month, the FCC puts out the ever-exciting "Media Bureau Call Sign Actions", which recaps all of the changes in call sign at every US broadcast facility ( example). We get a lot of chained swaps (B becomes C, A becomes B) and round-robin changes (B becomes A and A becomes B). This is a lot of work to keep up to date, and it demands pagemover (indeed, this is the reason I have the right) and results invariably in several G6s of redirects every month.We likely have a good number of dabs we no longer need, but because of the reuse of call signs, dabs can be an appropriate short-term strategy to reduce astonishment. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Since there's currently one station currently assigned to that callsign, there's no need to have a disambiguation page for such. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no need for a disambiguation page here: a hatnote will do it. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.