Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (8th 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 wasspeedy closed Luna Santin (talk · contribs) suggestion was in response to the article being WP:CSD#G11 spam. This article has been the subject of an on going edit war 4 AfD nominations and at least 6 CSD tags inside 10 days. It has also been subject to 4 other AFD nominations prior to this round of edit warring. Its also difficult to AGF the nomination by an editor new to this page today (11 Aug). Gnangarra 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Railpage Australia

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

Despite weeks to change the text no attempt has been made to clean up the advertising. This is being taken to AFD as recommended by Luna Santin. Fundie Busters 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• correction - this is actually the eighth AFD for this article. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - Bad faith nom by a single purpose account. The article may have problems, but abuse of process isn't the way to solve them. --Bongwarrior 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree and you MUST assume good faith. An administrator recommended taking this to AFD. Fundie Busters 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith "The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF." Each time you nominate the article for a spurious AfD, you lose more and more credibility, and the chance of the article actually being deleted becomes less and less. You are turning the Fundie Railpage Kiddies into a bunch of people who are being picked on by a bully. Speedy Close, and permanently block the nominator, and the next sockpuppet he uses, and the one after that, and the one after that, etc.Johnmc 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Refer to the bottom part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The_Null_Devicefor more sockpuppets that this editor has used in the past.Johnmc 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable — 124.190.97.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'd just like to note that not only is this IP address an SPA, but it recently edit-warring by invalidly adding a speedy deletion page to this page. --Haemo 07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Though most of the previous AfDs were closed early as bad faith nominations, making the number of discussions a bit misleading, this nomination has been made by yet another single-purpose account. If it is so pertinent that an administrator recommended taking this to AfD, then that admin is more than welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Maxamegalon2000 07:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - single-issue SPA account undermines the credibility of the nomination. All previous nominations have been seriously compromised by SPA's and votestacking; yet, they have all been closed as keep. Multiple sources on the page demonstrate notability. We do not need to go through this again. --Haemo 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close And please stop wasting our time. It seems this page is up for deletion every few days. Recurring dreams 07:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Oops, sorry. I wasn't aware of the prior AfD history, when I made that suggestion. I only saw a speedy nomination that didn't seem to meet the criteria, and figured a prod would be contested in a matter of minutes, so declined and suggested AfD as the standard forum of appeal. No particular opinion, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is ridiculous. Nick mallory 08:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note - 1st Afd (May 06) withdrew on Stub page. 2nd Afd (Feb 07) Keep. 3rd Afd (July 07) closed as content dispute. 4th - 7th Afd closed as bad faith nom. KTC 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If there were a non-bad faith nomination by a non-SPA, then there's probably room for a discussion since it has actually been a while since a valid AfD. However that is not the case as it stand. KTC 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close and keep Oh please, this is getting ridiculous! --Canley 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete This nomination should be let to run its course. I suspect in the second nomination for deletion there was voting fraud. The later part of the current article is borderline advertising (Digital River) see hosting services [1] and a vanity write up with no proper referencing of individuals involved.

If weak deleted there should be some mention in the article that Railpage is a commercial venture. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [2]. I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [3]. To this date they have not.

Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [4] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [5] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[6]. If a weak delete is supported the box in the top right hand corner should be edited as follows.[7]

Tezza1 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Tezza, an AfD is not the place for a content dispute ("Commercial or non-commercial?"). If you include discussions like that here, you may very well cause the debate to be closed. There is one place for that debate,and that is in the Railpage Talk page.Johnmc 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, so I can't argue for a weak delete? I still think the current nomination should run it's course.Tezza1 09:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You can certainly argue for a weak delete, as you did in your first sentence. It's just that arguing over content (as you did in your second half) has no real bearing on the debate. The Railpage article is not going to be deleted over whether or not Railpage Australia is a commercial or non-commercial organization. And I don't think it should run it's course, simply because it is by the same person (the aus.rail "Nomen Nescio/George Orwell/Anonymous Sender" character) who has made the last 5 nominations, and that any Railpage article AfD made by him is tainted, and should be nipped in the bud, pronto. If you wish a *proper* AfD, then wait a respectable period of time (say a month or two), and nominate it yourself. Johnmc 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Whatever the original nominators intentions (i suspect his/her intentions could be the opposite to what people immediately think) I still think this nomination should be run till end,Tezza1 09:18, 11 August 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.