Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep Gnangarra 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Railpage Australia

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
New or anonymous users who wish to contribute evidence to this discussion, please feel free to comment on the talk page which is not protected. John Vandenberg 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Railpage Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB for lack of multiple reliable substantial third-party coverage. Currently protected apparently due to editwarring about whether a reference to a site administrator having allegedly commited a crime should be included. That text (see history) contains a reference to a newspaper story about that person's arrest; however the website is only mentioned in passing there. Sandstein 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - only links are to the site itself; no evidence of coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would support keeping if we had independent sources indicating notability. At the moment it doesn't and Google News Archive has nothing on them.Capitalistroadster 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Railpage was started six years before Google. The early newspaper reviews of the web site content such as the one in The Age in 1994 (four years before Google started) would not be anywhere online. 72.55.140.16 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC) — 72.55.140.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: Was previously nominated for deletion in May 2006 (discussion here). The nomination was withdrawn. --Canley 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepI Disagree. The site has been quoted in a number of major metropolitan newspapers (check the talk page for references), and has been frequented by high-profile politicians, as well as a number of journalists. It is quoted and referenced in a number of print magazines and video media such as Newsrail. Furthermore, they serve as a portal and hosting service for a significant number of volunteer and tourist operations including a number that are supported by Federal Government. The site is also referenced a number of times for tourist information on various state government tourism websites. Also, a number of wikipedia articles take data from railpage, as well as link to it. Are these third-party sources?
See also: http://www.arts.nsw.gov.au/Links/Links/mseums%20and%20galleries.htm, http://www.aboutseniors.com.au/HobbiesOutdoor.html, http://www.abc.net.au/goldfields/stories/s952896.htm, http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1553161.htm, http://www.rctcc.org/links.html. Also, check out groups - it's mentioned heaps of times.
203.82.183.148 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Being quoted is not sufficient. Please remember the criteria for notability: "being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". A quote in an article, etc that mentions Railpage in a single sentence or paragraph does not constitute being the subject of that article, and hence you can't use these mentions (or quotes) to demonstrate notability. Therefore delete
It has been quoted many times in major daily newspapers (see one example on the talk page) but not every Australian newspaper puts every article online. Google News Archive is not the be all and end all of the world's news. This search shows 895 Australian government web pages linking to Railpage. It is an EdNA Evaluated Page approved as a school resource (this is not just a link and every site approved by EdNA as a school resource has to be evaluated). The Australian Bureau of Statistics has used it as a secondary source[1]. Jim Betts, the Victorian Director of Public Transport, contributed to the site in an official capacity. 72.55.140.16 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
note that this is this anon's second vote. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above IP DXRAW 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: None of the above sources are coverage about the website, as far as I can tell. They merely link to the website as a source for train-related information. However, we are not a web directory. WP:WEB requires that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published work" (my emphasis). Sandstein 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is a non-notable vanity page. Get rid of it. 202.248.48.251 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Note that the content of the site is being used as the subject of these works, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics one (used as a secondary source), and the many newspaper articles it has been referenced in (the content, not the fact that the site exists). It has been considered notable by WIPO in an arbitration case here. I recall the site being discussed and reviewed a couple of times on ABC radio, however their transcripts don't stay online long enough for me to link it. Now bear in mind also that the site represents specific interest, and thus is reviewed and profiled often in Railway magaziners (print form, not online). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.28.90.133 (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).— 203.28.90.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: Railpage was also noted in the Fairfax (Print) Press with several quotes from it's administrator in an article about Railfandom. Among it was: "Morgan is one of the administrators of Railpage.com.au, Australia's biggest online rail community that dates back to the dawn of the internet in 1992." ... "There are many more than a few. With up to 20 new members a day, Railpage has 10,000 registered users and boasts more than 500,000 posted articles." among other mentions. It was considered first on the list of notable Rail websites in Australia.
203.28.90.133 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that the criteria for notability lies along the lines of being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. If the website does satisfy this criteria, please let me know. — 211.30.155.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:41 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Bear in mind we're talking GUIDELINES for notability. But still, look at the opening lines of Notability(Web) "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples". The Railpage Australia article describes the nature, appearance, and services the website offers. It goes further to detail some of the site's achievements (which can be added to by the looks here), it looks at the site's impact on the Railfan community, and touches on its historical significance (which can also be added to looking at the talk page). This article clearly is in the spirit of Notability(Web). It has been shown that the site is of significance due to its historical significance of internet in Australia. It has also been proven to be used as sources for major news outlets as well as government and a variety of print and radio media. Contributors also remember a number of print articles (which are unfortunately no longer available online) where the site itself was the subject. So, we see that content from the site is being used in reliable, well-known third-party publications - which makes it fit Criteria 3 of Notability.
203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is sufficiently notable, as has been explained above. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you really think that you can make such a blatant mis-statement and get away with it? To be "quoted" or "mentioned" in a seniors site or a site of railway links does not constitute notability: note the criteria for notability - "being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". Please point to non-trivial, reliable published sources in which Railpage is the subject of an article, and not simply mentioned in a single line or paragraph. Your fondness for contributing things that are patently false is well-known, please refrain from this passion of yours in this case.
Would you mind restricting your discussion to the article and not to me? As for blatant mis-statements, I'd consider your accusation of me have a "fondness for contributing things that are patently false" is one such statement, and constitutes vilification. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Incidentally, I find it odd that the article has a Deletion notice that invites editors to improve the article (clearly with the intention of avoiding deletion) whilst the article is locked and not able to be improved. The article is not well done and not well referenced, but there seems to be an impetus now to improve it, yet it has been proposed for deletion without the opportunity to improve it. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Railpage mafia are really grasping at straws. The "published works" they keep bringing up are trivial and irrelevant. It is an insiginficant site run by children. — 59.106.21.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:38 27 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Thankyou for your even-handed and unbiased suggestion.
    • 203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with a previous comment on grounds of the website being discussed not being notable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)
    • Yet, you've not provided anything to disprove the above qualifications that previous people have provided.
    • 203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a partisan advertising commentary WP:NOT, no cited references WP:CITE & WP:VERIFY. I fear there will never be any consensus to any proposed changes.
Particularly not when the anti- editors have not being willing to discuss the contents. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It certainly fails WP:NPOV!!!!!! Tezza1 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not the place to advertise, and this article doesn't read like an advertisement. Notability(Web) says: "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance", which this article clearly does. If there are ciation problems, these are soemthing that need to be edited to fix (citations provided), not have the article deleted. In future, please refrain from trying to suggest NPOV violation when YOU don't like the site in question. Your campaign of vandalism of the article does little to improve your character. Your suggestions on the James Morgan section were irrelevant and poorly considered - and despite two administrators and countless others telling you so, you continued to persist with this petty smear campaign. I suggest that it may be time for you to take a step back from the article, for it is you that refuses to come to consensus, and you who is intent on defacing the article.
        • Have a nice day.
      • 203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. With a website the size of this one, it is very difficult to find "third party" sources that are not directly involved (as I am). It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a (?)small group of former or disaffected members. The simple truth is that Railpage is the first stop for almost everyone seeking information about Australian railways, and this is reason enough for keeping the entry live.Latrodectus 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Correction, I think one arbitrator disagreed with the subject, the other approached it from a neutral point of view and locked discussion with the subject material in place.

The incident was newsworthy being printed in an article in the Herald Sun. His actions were never properly explained, and there were calls for him to be removed at the time. crawford+busted

I'll again use the comparision, if an leading individual of a company that featured an article here on Wikipedia was accused or convicted of a crime associated with his role at the company, the company of course would not condone the crime, but mention of that accused actions (even if found not guilty) if it was recorded in the mainstream printed media and the boards subsequent refusal to sack or reprimand the individual or publicly distance itself would surely rate a mention within that wikipedia article on that company.

Even if some people find mentioning his name objectional, It is my opinion that there should be some mention of this "small" "social controversy". Wikipedia has allowed mention the mention of "controversies" elsewhere - see Post-match "handbag incident". Super_14_Final.

I fear there will never be any consensus to any proposed changes even if there is only just a passing mention in the article of the "incident".

I did propose Arbitration, however others have proposed for reasons already indicated (uncited material, etc) that the article is a candiate for deletion.

Tezza1 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

...a crime associated with his role at the company...
That's one problem. There's been no evidence tendered here to show that his alleged crime had anything to do with his role with Railpage.
His actions were never properly explained...
I presume that his actions were explained to the court, and I further presume that you are claiming that his actions were never properly explained on, say, Railpage. But you've never properly explained why they should be.
Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: At this point I have semiprotected this AfD due to the influx of unhelpful comments by new and anonymous users. Sandstein 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - the site is one of the world's biggest rail enthusiast websites and the biggest in Australia, I should think; it has been up and running a long time as well. I did a Factiva search and it came up with only a couple of useful links, but RP has been involved in the production of a national rail map, etc; it hosts and helps run the websites of a number of notable rail heritage groups. It's even being quoted on rail incidents - an article in the West Australian newspaper about a prang between two railcars in TransPerth's depot quoted Railpage as a reliable source! The original versions of the page were quite bad and needed sourcing, but when I asked the contributors they did so and would probably be happy to source the page again if needed. The incident in question with the Railpage moderator was mentioned on Rove Live. JROBBO 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its history as an early Australian website makes it notable, and the reliable sources that have beeb provide do count, and more are being brought to this Afd. For example, the abc article is talking about the St Kilda Tramway Museum, which is hosted online by Railpage at [2]. The article needs to move from a focus about the equipment to being about the "society", its history and relevance to the community; e.g. list its activities like previous meets. Also, from what I read on the aus.rail newsgroup, it seems like there have been server issues, so if reliable sources can be found, or it can be phrased carefully, I think it is worth mentioning. John Vandenberg 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Here are some early posts that mention railpage on groups aus.rail, rec.railroad and fj.rec.rail. John Vandenberg 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Not of themselves good sources. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I would allow these as sources to support the claims being made. What sources are otherwise going to exist? I did check the Wayback machine, it didn't help but that absence of support did not mean it did not exist.--Golden Wattle talk 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete lots of claims to notability, but so far despite much asking and claims of proof, no reliable sources backing up any of the claims. Nuttah68 10:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - disagree. Multiple independent sources (two major daily newspapers and two government departments) have been cited on the talk page. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete (and I say this as a enthuiast in PT) as nominator in the original AfD, I withdrawn the first one it as it did seem borderline notable after a quick research in google. But since then, it seems to fail the reliable sources test, and there are some events (eg the server issues) that doesnt really need mentioning unless if can be verified and sourced --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - disagree. Multiple independent sources (two major daily newspapers and two government departments) have been cited on the talk page. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to meet notability and WP:ATT, although as always with WP:WEB one must ensure it doesn't become a vanity page for the forum. However there seems no valid reason to delete. Orderinchaos78 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - disagree. As was mentioned above, multiple independent sources have been cited on the talk page. This includes at least two Australian government department (Geoscience Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics) using Railpage as a secondary source (not just mere links). The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RS. I disagree vehemently that this is not a notable subject, but it simply cannot be reliably sourced per guidelines. SM247My Talk 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - disagree. As was mentioned above, multiple independent sources (at least two major daily newspapers) have been cited on the talk page. Part of the problem is some of the early newspaper reviews of the site content are not available online. The Null Device
  • Conditional Keep. Appears to meet notability and I would have thought major daily newspapers were reliable sources. Better to replace AfD with a cleanup tag and review in one month. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps borderline, but definitely notable due to its sheer longevity and depth of information. Probably a case of erring on the side of caution here. Lankiveil 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Rebecca 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - long standing, notable website. -- Chuq 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - has quite a few independent cites on Factiva which is a newspaper search engine so fits WP:N. It shouldnt be used as a source but that's different to having an article *about* it DanielT5 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. 4 citations on Google Scholar.[3] Thin Arthur 09:40, 6 March 2007 (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.