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 delete. After completing a full review of all of the previous AFD closes, I think it is safe to say this is the first true deletion discussion to transpire thus far for this article. The only AFD in which anything remotely akin to a full discussion occurred was from just a month before I joined this site, nearly a decade ago. And, our policies have changed drastically since then. But, even so, some of the same concerns being brought up now had been presented at that time.

The initial and lasting concern has been that there are no sources providing the requisite evidence of notability; this concern is not misplaced. As at no point, in nearly ten years, have sources been presented to properly establish notability. Simply put: passing mentions, trivial coverage, and brief summaries do not qualify as significant coverage; the topic must be covered directly and in detail. Furthermore, the sources must be independent; primary sources cannot establish notability. However, the sources shown thus far do not appear to fulfill these requirements. After nearly ten years, that is disappointing.

In closing, the arguments presented for the deletion of this article are found to be backed by policy, specifically: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. The arguments for retention, without the existence of any policy backed evidence to support their request, held no weight in the consideration of this close. Therefore, the subject of this article is found to lack the required notability for inclusion on this site. (Note: This close is held with prejudice against any recreation of this article, until the sourcing and notability issues are properly addressed.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia[edit]

Railpage Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know, I know. It's the ninth nomination and the article is listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Hear me out. Of the eight previous nominations, only the second was a full discussion. The first was withdrawn after a perfunctory discussion, while numbers 3–8 (listed at right) were thrown out for various procedural reasons. The site was at the center of a major conduct dispute, both on- and off-wiki, which culminated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. There hasn't been a true discussion about the notability of this topic since 2007.

I don't think the site meets our notability guidelines and I don't think the article establishes a claim to notability. While the lede claims that the site has been "quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications", this amounts to a few links to the site sprinkled in to documents produced in the mid-2000s. None of these are about the site itself. Most of the information about the site is self-referenced, which cannot be used to establish notability. Most of the Google Scholar citations are false positives because of the similarity between "Railpage" and "Rail, page." In any event, citation of a source does not make that source notable. One source that does discuss the site in brief, by Roger Clarke, is apparently sourced to a userspace draft on Wikipedia itself. While the Parliament of Australia did include a link to Railpage in 2007 (see [1] and [2]), it does not do so any longer and the inclusion of a bare link without context does not, in my view, help establish a site's notability. What we're missing here is any kind of commentary or discussion about the site itself independent of the site.

In addition, the article had major COI issues from its inception. It was started by Bevans@omni.com.au (talk · contribs), probably the site's owner (or someone claiming to be him), and was heavily-edited by Dbromage (talk · contribs), apparently a major figure in the site's history. This wouldn't pass muster with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest today and it was shaky even in 2006–2007. Dbromage has since been banned for sockpuppetry in an unrelated matter.

Leaving aside all the problems with tone and self-sourced context, this topic fails WP:WEB. It probably failed WP:WEB in 2007 (and there were those who thought so) but standards were looser then and a truly disruptive conduct dispute clouded the issue. Thanks for reading this far, Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close  WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page..."  Looking at the talk page shows that this nominator has not engaged in discussion on the talk page of the article in an attempt to resolve his or her concerns, just as for this same reason there is no support on the talk page for an AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how AfD works; if you have a substantive comment this would be a good time to make it. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you want to discuss this, why did you not initiate discussion on the talk page?  What about WP:BEFORE C4?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to suggest a merge target and content which you think could be merged. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are content issues.  As per WP:DEL, "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page..."  Also from WP:DEL, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page..." which I would also support in addition to, or in conjunction with, a speedy close.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're the one who raised C4, which talks about merges. I didn't talk about merges because I don't think the topic is notable. Quoting chapter-and-verse from WP:BEFORE doesn't change the fact that it's advisory, at best. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:BEFORE begins, "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to..."  The editnotice refers every editor who posts at AfD to this text.  Whether or not you think it is advisory, the community has politely asked to you do this.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for asserting that merges are not relevant, WP:N is not a deletion policy...the deletion policy is WP:DEL8, and is a higher requirement than WP:Notability.  WP:BEFORE A1 tells us, "Read and understand these policies and guidelines...1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes"  See also the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry, but these comments are nonsensical. I never said merges were irrelevant; I simply didn't propose one because I thought there was nothing to merge. Articles which fail to meet the relevant notability guideline may absolutely be deleted, as the very policy you quoted says: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." I assert this article fails WP:WEB. Says so right in the nomination. Again, I invite your views on whether this article satisfies WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  I would likely consider a relisting of this AfD without a rationale for so doing, to be an edit against consensus.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: TL;DR version of nomination: this is, at most, the third actual nomination and the first in nine years. The site fails WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but preserve somewhere. This is a valuable piece of internet lore and should be preserved somewhere. Maybe http://www.railroad.net/ would be a good home? But (at least in its current form), it's not an encyclopedia article, and I'd be surprised if we could find the kind of WP:RS we need to make it one. There's a ton of references, but I don't see any which meet our needs. I looked at the first eight or so, and none of those were even close to what we want. Possibly there are better sources further down the list, but I'm not going to slog through the whole list of 42 (none with titles that stand out and grab me as being likely candidates) to see if there are any. It would be useful for this discussion if somebody could find the 2 or 3 best ones and list them here for easy review. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without a doubt, fails WP:WEB. I hope we can finally kill this article, despite the fact it has had 9 unsuccessful nominations. There is a statement in the lead section that I would like to share: "It has been quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications."[1] There is not a single source by this bold statement. I struggle to think of any rationale that warrants a "keep". -- ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 14:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Most of the sources here are just references to the website itself. Omni Flames (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Backed up by independent/3rd party reliable sources. — Music1201 ^talk 01:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it isn't. I did quite a lot of searching and found only passing references in some Australian broadcasters' websites. That's not coverage. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge I see some hits in Google books and there seem to be sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger into pages such as Rail transport in Australia, List of railroad-related periodicals, Glossary of Australian railway terms, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrew Davidson: Do you have specific examples from Google Books? I found two relevant hits, neither of which is about the site: [3] [4]. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a lot more than that but it's hard to make out the details because they are snippets. For example, Bulletin in 2003 "This Week's Top Links: Trainspotting www.railpage.org.au Australia's premier site for trainspotters and rail ..." Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then restore, then delete again, then finally keep --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand this is a part of web lore, but stuff like this is the reason Wikia exists. This fails WP:WEBCRIT. I do not see significant coverage about the website nor do I see how it has influenced culture or if it has won any awards. Interest websites are an important part of the web, but not every such website is notable enough to be on an encyclopaedia. From what I see, the website has been quoted (or used as a source) in a few publications, but no independent source has detailed coverage about the website itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When I closed the DRV and relisted this AfD, I forgot that I was the AfD nominator in 2007, which has now been brought to my attention; I had no recollection of this article or the AfD. Sorry about that. I'll refrain from further comments or admin actions with respect to this AfD.  Sandstein  09:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way back in 2007, I said "Keep", and this was the sort of page that would pass muster a decade ago. Our standards around sourcing have since got a lot stricter (and this is a good thing), but this page hasn't been able to keep pace with the community's expectations in that regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Nine nominations? On the web continuously since 1992. One of the first web pages served in Australia. Used as an official resource by museums, schools and government publications. All of these things scream notability to me. As noted by Mackensen in his overly long diatribe against this page, none of these are wikipedia's usual measures of significance. They are indicators of significance nonetheless. The fact that so many noms have struggled so very hard for ten years to even come up with a reason to delete this page tells me that they are mistaken.  The Steve  12:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The last nomination was in 2007. No one has nominated it since then. So essentially, this is the first nomination in 9 years. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on policy, this page fails WP:WEB. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on policy, this page passes WP:WEB - It has had a significant effect on culture (one of the earliest Australian community organizations to launch on the web [5]), geography (provided resources for Geoscience Australia to produce a railway map), and history (used as a source by the Victoria Museum).  The Steve  05:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How can something pass (or fail) a guideline "based on policy"? And which WP:WEB are you reading which says none of that stuff as actual criteria, but does give two actual criteria. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - do you have either of those? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Considered. Passed. Also, "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb...". I am not using the specified rules of thumb, but other indicators of significance.  The Steve  14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. There are claims to notability, but it doesn't seem anybody, myself included, has been able to find anything approachin sufficient coverage on which to base an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to railpage.com.au, primary name I first thought that this might be the most elaborate hoax of all time, a website from 1994 having no sources seems impossible. I could find two third party sources on Railpage Australia, here Book extract read on National Radio, How to Plan Your Dream Vacation Using the Web. The second give signficant coverage, still borderline GNG. However if you search under the current title "railpage.com.au" you get many sources citing the webpage Daily Mail, Transport, the Environment and Security: Making the Connection, [6], etc. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  These were discussed above; none of them are about the site. Did you find any sources which discuss the site in any depth? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB, only sourcing appears to be brief mentions, nothing in-depth and reliable about the site itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject simply doesn't pass WP:WEB, which allows two routes to demonstrating notability: the GNG route of significant coverage in third party reliable sources, or winning well known awards (which isn't claimed here). The third-party sources which are held up as evidence of notability boil down to places which mention, reference, quote or link to Railpage Australia. Actual coverage of the site in such sources is extremely slim. Aside from these we are left with numerous citations to the site itself (which isn't independent) and automated pages such as traffic stats or domain registration (which are virtually worthless). It does look like a determined effort has been made to present this as a notable topic, but there's very little to back that up. Hut 8.5 21:57, 28 July 2016 (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.