Deletion of LOLCat Bible Translation Project (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article already has legitimate |sources, and the editorial linked by Umbralcorax above could be added as a source too. I believe the nominator has misunderstood Wikipedia:Stub, the guideline for stubs; being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. I also don't know what the nominator means by saying that the "chronicle" link is unaccessible; there's no mention of anything called the Chronicle in this article or its cites. Nor are there any inappropriately duplicated links in the references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: this is really the third nomination, and |we already have had consensus that this is notable.  As the years go on, "moar" and |better sources attest to its notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:RS)