Deletion of Railpage Australia (3rd nomination)

Comment: the "references" are poll results and server stats?  What is this?  At any rate, |not notable, and the previous AfD's were infested by |single purpose accounts so are of little guidance.  &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:SPA)

Comment: AfD is not article cleanup. Notability has been established, but the article just needs a bit of a rewrite and cleanup to get it to an acceptable level. The nomination screams  as noted by Dhartung
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: there are no |reliable sources in this article, whatsoever.  Why weren't they added last time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=railpage+site%3Agov.au This search shows 895 Australian government web pages linking to Railpage. It is an http://www.education.gov.au/goved/browse/0,3830,759,635,640?start=11&count=10 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 sourcehttp://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310116.NSF/0/ec03f30964e795b5ca256dcc007c2598/$FILE/Statsercise%203%202004.pdf. 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.   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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: despite the pretty clear indications of some kind of  nomination, or more probably an off-Wikipedia feud, there do not seem to be sufficient |reliable sources to pass  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: so it can be recreated entirely from material available at |reliable sources by somebody with no |conflict of interest. All the references are back to railpage so how do they meet  - I don't care how often their stats have been quoted, nobody has written ''about the website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:COI||WP:N)

Comment: There are no |reliable sources stated, nor could i find any. It also fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:N)