When a numbered IP starts screwing with your article, you revert him. End of story. Everyone will back you up on that. Esecially since you're never supposed to delete sourcing from an article. Because people who do that put the article author in the situation you're in now.
I'm just annoyed because Rant Media does quite obviously deserve an article by WP's guidelines. However, because the people who've made Rant articles and SK articles on Wikipedia over the past 5 years have often done such a bad job, writing articles that read like spam, not following Wikipedia's standard format, we've now ended up in a situation where the AfD can result in a salt - that's where they "salt the earth" so the article can never again be created.
And meanwhile, once this artilce is deleted, Sean Kennedy'll be spending another 6 months being all whiney and snitty about Wikipedia again. I won't be able to listen to him. 
Ultimately, to reach your goal, it doesn't matter what's right and wrong here. What matters is that the various Wikipedia editors in AfD see that you've followed the rules: that your article is as good as any others and that it's as well-sourced as any others. If you've been watching and listening to Sean Kennedy you already know that. Infiltration requires not being seen to be the enemy. 
Go look at Order of Nine Angles. That's an article I rescued from AfD. The article used to, ages ago, be quite frankly stupid. It's about a supposed Satanic cult, of which there's only 1 confirmed member. But since it was mentioned in half a dozen scholarly books or more, I managed to get the article accepted - by following the rules. It's the only real article I've ever worked on, and I had to learn all the footnoting and formatting from scratch. If I can make that article acceptable, you can easily make a RantMedia article acceptable. The problem is you're almost out of time - you can completely repair an article during AfD, and that will give you a chance to avoid a delete vote. But you'd have to start now.