Deletion of Wikiquote (2nd nomination)

Comment: Does the "it's part of wikipedia" count as a valid  argument though? I don't really have any strong arguments either way, but  does exist for a reason, no? I believe that {{reply to|Djm-leighpark}} made this argument earlier: ''"Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations  tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. 1 covers is for me and can anyone tell me if 2 is any good? + those above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: Below I refute any possible |SIGCOV about Wikiquote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I can only assume {{U|Whjayg}}/Jay is referring to the relisting admin ... who I have noted on many AfD's providing helpful comments to the discussion on relist ... often displaying great insight into Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It's pointless racking up loads of sources that won't pass  but we now have on the article (Woods & Theony 2011)''("Dummies")''; (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) with (Rickson, 2013) also fairly tempting for .  For  (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) both use a lot of web content while there are many examples of Wikiquote being used for the source of things; and while not the example I was looking for this whole article from the Independent (url-access=limited) seems somewhat reliant on misquotes from Wikiquote  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-top-ten-misquotations-8611230.html for example
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Already keep voting above but responding to relisters comments).  When nominating per  there is onus on the nom. to try to improve the article first and if that fails, if the article has noteability issues, to tag the article for improvement per  C#3 or otherwise notify parties for improvement and this does not seem to have been done.  This is necessary to give goodly time for improvement and helps prevent hasty and rushed comments by at least one idiot.  The nom in the nomination rightly and correctly identified one suitable source, now articled, (Buscaldi et al, 2007) ''Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection'' at the International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications conference.  (DeVinney, 2007) was a dead link and not recovery at nom. time in the article, I have recovered same and it seems most suitable for the keep.  The fact it was used in Italian  curriculum ( Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca, 2018) seems persuasive, the ZIP download reference is a tad of an issue and I have personally not opened it.  Thankyou
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations  tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless.  http://johnbreslin.org/files/publications/20151111_jist2015.pdf covers is for me and can anyone tell me if https://doi.org/10.1145/1149453.1149456 is any good?  + those above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: I have voted for Keep before, this explanation is to respond to relisting). Todate, there are 8 independent sources in the article. I believe it is sufficient enough for Wikiquote to pass  and  without having to rely on Wiki family references. The references are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT||WP:GNG)