Deletion of Railpage Australia (2)

Comment: per . I disagree vehemently that this is not a notable subject, but it simply cannot be reliably sourced per guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Its history as an early Australian website makes it notable, and the reliable sources that have beeb provide '''do''' count, and more are being brought to this Afd.  For example, the abc article is talking about the St Kilda Tramway Museum, which is hosted online by Railpage at http://www.railpage.org.au/aetmsa/.  The article needs to move from a focus about the equipment to being about the "society", its history and relevance to the community; e.g. list its activities like previous meets.  Also, from what I read on the aus.rail newsgroup, it seems like there have been server issues, so if |reliable sources can be found, or it can be phrased carefully, I think it is worth mentioning
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Appears to meet notability and , although as always with  one must ensure it doesn't become a vanity page for the forum. However there seems no valid reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:WEB)

Comment: only links are to the site itself; no evidence of coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: and I say this as a enthuiast in PT) as nominator in the original AfD, I withdrawn the first one it as it did seem borderline notable after a quick research in google.  But since then, it seems to fail the |reliable sources test, and there are some events (eg the server issues) that doesnt really need mentioning unless if can be |verified and |sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS)