Deletion of Railpage Australia (9th nomination)

Comment: the subject simply doesn't pass , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails . Most of the sources here are just references to the website itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: I understand this is a part of web lore, but stuff like this is the reason Wikia exists. This fails . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: without a doubt, fails . 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."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railpage_Australia 1 There is not a single source by this bold statement. I struggle to think of any rationale that warrants a "keep". -- '''ProgrammingGeek
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails . 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. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NWEB)

Comment: per , only sourcing appears to be brief mentions, nothing in-depth and reliable about the site itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)