Deletion of Bura Sign Language

Comment: Unless there is an established policy on languages (in which case someone should link to it),  is indeed the standard. A language documented only in a single manuscript by a single researcher and with no other sources clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Whereas  is a valid reason for deletion, this isn't one of those cases. Unless it's the case that this language is a hoax, I don't see logic behind deleting the article on it. I could see a '''merge''' to Kilba people (where Bura people presently redirects), but it's specifically a language of the Bura people around Kukurpu... thus I feel a merge there might not satisfy . If there were a Kukurpu article, I would probably support a merge there, however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:DUE)

Comment: possible merge. The language has received significant coverage (an entire grammar devoted to it) in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. Vectro notes that there is currently no explicit policy on the notability of natural languages; perhaps there should be. It appears to be the case (kwami or others, correct me if I am wrong) that there is to date only one full grammar of the language, plus a small number of linguistics papers that cite that grammar. It is understandable that this would raise notability concerns, especially among editors who are not particularly interested in descriptive or "field" linguistics. As I suggest, though, the |general notability guideline specifies only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we want to parse the plural "source''s''", note that the guideline goes on to say, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Plural source''s'' are generally expected but not required if the source offers high quality, in-depth treatment of the subject. To the possible merge: there appear to be a number of village sign languages that have only one or two sources. It might be preferable (but not strictly necessary) to bundle these into a longer article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)