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 Speedy close, bad faith nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatant advertising for non-notable web forum FailpageMustGo 03:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— FailpageMustGo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Null Device 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw Afd. Bad faith nomination from SPA. The Null Device 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Afd Yet another very, very bad-faith nomination (you can tell from the username, as well as see another example in [1]. The article has survived 3 AfDs easily, and all relevant criteria for having an article has been established. I'd also move for blocking the user 'FailpageMustGo'. 59.167.77.190 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore AfD, Block Nominator Single purpose account - "Failpage" is a often used as a term of derision by Railpage detractors - and the reason given is basically the same as the 4th nomination, which was closed 2 days ago. AfD is not a blog for content disputes. The Railpage article is not a blatant anything, and the nominee is most likely the same person "DFC Free OZ" who started the 3rd AfD. Is there anything which can be done to prevent frivilous AfD's every 2 days?Johnmc 03:18, 26 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.