Deletion of Volapük Wikipedia

Comment: If I might reply to those who have !voted keep above, whether a subject is "important" to Wikipedia, or has been discussed internally at Wikipedia, is irrelevant to the existence of this article and is in no way a reason to keep it. Also, not quite every Wikipedia has its own article, as the red links on the relevant template indicate, but again this is irrelevant to the discussion of ''this'' article. Notability requirements aren't there to make sure something is important enough for inclusion, but to ensure that there are sufficient sources to make a |verifiable, NPOV article with no original research. Please base your arguments on WP's policies and guidelines rather than personal preference
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Being a "big wikipedia" is not criteria for inclusion according to  -- there needs to be non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: despite  and any internal drama there are no reliable 3rd party sources available for the subject of the article. Although, if we apply  than it could probably be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:IAR)

Comment: This is not notable under  or , not even close. Nary a reliable source has paid attention to this site, and if it weren't a WMF project we wouldn't be here. Afterall, for all other articles we require independent coverage. If there's content that isn't all ready at List of Wikipedias, I suppose I would not object to adding that in, and a redirect is appropriate, but there just isn't the independent coverage to justify a stand alone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB)