Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (3rd nomination)

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 wasprocedural closer as per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion afd is not for content disputes, wikipedia is not a forumn/blog with which to attack/express dislike of a subject. Gnangarra 12:59, 23 July 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}}

Railpage Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant vanity page for non-notable web forum backed up by self-published references. DFC Free Oz 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Surprised this has survived twice before. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, not notable. All sources are self published. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - notability was established in the previous AfD. I question the validity of the claim. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Railpage sucks doodle!!!! 200.143.129.98 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Teach the Jailpage kiddies a lesson. 222.135.79.155 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)— 222.135.79.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong delete, about time this pile of excrement vanity article was removed. 201.248.94.168 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. About time this page was deleted. Hopefully it will be voted out this time. Then we can all party while the kiddies have a cry! 222.135.79.155 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)— 222.135.79.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - very questionable anon IP submissions in rapid succession. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom... along with these comments above? Heh. :/ - Kneel17 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The page needs to be rewritten so that it's more fluid, but per Thin Arthur and past AfDs it is notable. Stupid of me to jump so fast. - Kneel17 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, despite the pretty clear indications of some kind of WP:POINT nomination, or more probably an off-Wikipedia feud, there do not seem to be sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:WEB requirements. It pains me to reward such obvious bad faith, but my hunch is that if we identify the sponsor of this little sortie, we could rebalance the scales. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - these might shed some light on it. Usenet posts from a known Railpage critic. Note the article subject and the poster's tag line and compare it with the nominator.[1] The nominator is also a new account whose very first edit was to restore a previously deleted AfD for the article. Thin Arthur 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment - This seems to explain the term "DFC" and adds to the context of my above comment and the account of the nominator. Thin Arthur 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Notability was established in the previous AfD. It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a small group of former or disaffected members. It is an EdNA Evaluated Page approved as a school resource - this is not just a mere link and every site approved by EdNA as a school resource has to be evaluated against educational criteria. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has used Railpage as a secondary source.[2] 5 citations on Google Scholar.[3] Railpage is also cited as a source in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. Transport in Iran, 4D (train), Gowrie railway station, Melbourne, Connex Melbourne, Rail rollingstock in New South Wales, Walhalla Goldfields Railway. Thin Arthur 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; the "references" are poll results and server stats? What is this? At any rate, not notable, and the previous AfD's were infested by single purpose accounts so are of little guidance. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE!

• removed excessive and disruptive text. Otto4711 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - there are no reliable sources in this article, whatsoever. Why weren't they added last time? --Haemo 04:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. They were lost in the edit war and the flurry of deliberaty misleading information added by editors who are also critics of the site. See the talk page for details. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Anon IP 202.108.12.194 has been blocked for excessive vandalism to this AfD, the Railpage article, and the user pages of various editors. --Canley 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep AfD is not article cleanup. Notability has been established, but the article just needs a bit of a rewrite and cleanup to get it to an acceptable level. The nomination screams WP:POINT as noted by Dhartung. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete so it can be recreated entirely from material available at reliable sources by somebody with no conflict of interest. All the references are back to railpage so how do they meet WP:N - I don't care how often their stats have been quoted, nobody has written about the website.Garrie 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Completely untrue. Articles about the site were mentioned in the previous AfD but lost in the edit wars, then the article was protected. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are no reliable sources stated, nor could i find any. It also fails WP:WEB and WP:N. Twenty Years 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It has already passed WP:WEB and WP:N in the previous AfD. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 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[4]. Jim Betts, the Victorian Director of Public Transport, contributed to the site in an official capacity. (Taken from last Afd). Those asking why these sources weren't included last time would probably find that the page was protected for a period of time, and within a week or so of protection being removed we're back here again and have had edit wars holding things up. WP:POINT seems to be the big factor here. I'd like to remind contributors that if the article doesn't contain reliable sources, but they do exist - then it is not a good cause for article deletion, but is a good cause for the article to be rewritten or edited. 59.167.89.251 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a major cleanup of the article. I've trimmed quite a lot of the fat from it, and included a slew of major sources, as well as included sections on uses of the site, its hosting services, and a short summary of the major staff. The history section still needs some major work, but the changes made alone here should be enough to convince anyone that doubts the site's notability or ability to provide independant sources. More work to be done, but it's well one the way.
• Strong keep. I concur with the previous comment.The article doesn't contain reliable sources, but they do exist. This is not a reason to delete the article. This was also discussed in the previous AfD. The decision of that AfD, even with the anon IP contributions, was keep and the article has since been cleaned up. The article remained protected until recently then the vandalism started again. Is it even legitimate that this AfD was sponsored by a newly created account, apparently created purely for the purpose of starting the AfD? Check the article history. An anon IP AfD was added a few days ago but this was removed as being incomplete. Then today a new account is created to do just that. WP:POINT is a major factor here. That is not a reason to delete the article, but it does need to be edited. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep A very notable website. This article requires a major cleanup, not deleting. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A major cleanup is in progress and third party sources are being added. The Null Device 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Checking out the Afd information page on Wikipedia shows that "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion.", however I notice that the reason given for this Afd begins with the term "Blatant vanity". 59.167.89.251 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several issues in the wording of the nom. Vanity: as per above, not in itself a reason for deletion. Non-notable: notability was previously established and third party sources have now been added. Web forum: Railpage is not just a forum, in fact it is probably more accurately described a portal for many resources including a discussion forum. Interestingly it seems the forum is the main target of the critics. The entire nom seems to be quite biased in its wording to the point of being misleading. The Null Device 09:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I didnt ask for a soap opera I said delete the page! JUST GET RID OF IT! CLEARLY NOT NOTABLE!!!!!!! Are you "keep" kiddies all Failpage members or what??????? Stick your views where the sun dont shine. Fundies are not wanted here!!!!! DFC Free Oz 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And with that little admission, I'd like to call for a Speedy Keep rather than my original strong keep. 59.167.89.251 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As recently as late 2006, The West Australian sourced the website for news about a railway project Recurring dreams 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Long-standing, notable website with semi-official recognition as detailed by others above. Article is in a parlous state, but that's a matter for cleanup. Orderinchaos 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Clearly a very, very bad faith nomination, courtesy of DFC Free Oz, and notability has been determined in previous AfDs. Agree this article needs sourcing improvement, can we nag tag it as such, perhaps alert the Article Rescue Squadron? --Canley 11:44, 23 July 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.