Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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)[reply]

Railpage Australia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Railpage Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)[reply]

Comment - notability was established in the previous AfD. I question the validity of the claim. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - very questionable anon IP submissions in rapid succession. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. It has already passed WP:WEB and WP:N in the previous AfD. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Comment. A major cleanup is in progress and third party sources are being added. The Null Device 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Railpage_Australia_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1069492499"