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