Deletion of Globus Cassus (second nomination)

Comment: The subject is notable for reasons that were articulated in the previous AfD discussion, but I'll elaborate here. First, yes, the subject is obscure, it doesn't generate Google hits in the same order of magnitude as ''Final Fantasy X'', and while sources such as "a small number of fairly specialised news sites" may at first seem damning, many other articles in WP have few Google hits and only specialised sources. Most of my work on WP has involved obscure subjects (barely known 19th century photographers in Asia), but they are notable nonetheless (apparently, even FA-worthy). That ''Globus Cassus'' was the "core of the Swiss entry" at the 9th Architecture Biennale in Venice of 2004 is already a claim to notability, that the project has been published by a renowned - if somewhat obscure - publisher (Lars Müller) bolsters that claim, and that the project continues to develop through its website adds further to that claim. Again, comparing with articles on photographers (which represent a similar set of problems re: notability), there is much agreement (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_photography#Notability_criteria_for_photographers this discussion, which follows from ) that notability depends on a photographer's work having been exhibited in a prominent exhibition and/or having appeared in a serious publication. Extrapolating from those criteria, ''Globus Cassus'' fits the bill in both respects. Finally, I must take issue with the characterisation of the previous AfD discussion as "I like it" vs. "I don't like it". In fact, the discussion was much more a case of "I don't like it, so it must be deleted" vs. "what are its merits as a subject for a WP article?". I happen to hate the subject, but I believe it merits an article in WP as an example of an admittedly obscure but notable combination of artistic/architectural/science fiction speculation and scholarship. I do agree that references need to be added, and I'd like to point out that such references are more likely to come from the realms of printed architectural and design sources than anything readily Googlable or otherwise Internet-based. It's not a subject I'm greatly interested in, but if I have time I'll try to add some bibliographical references to critical reviews, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)