Deletion of Volapük Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

Comment: I see plenty of |good sources already in the article - a reliable book about Wikipedia, a government website, amongst others. Per DGG, if we don't cover Wikimedia topics, who will
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: A solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship. Nitpicking this on the basis of sources is shortsighted and amounts to the worship of rules and regulations at the cost of common sense. Rather than kowtowing to the lower-level ''guidelines,'' we should keep in this case in accord with the higher level '''''policy''''' of  — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNOREALLRULES)

Comment: There is sufficent stuff here to sway me to keep - the sourcing might be minor and the language obscure, but I believe if nothing else this falls under  - readers will expect an article on other Wikipedias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Before we all get carried away with "Snow keep", I feel I need to point out that a number of sources are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which here is a |primary source, and not significant, ''independent'' coverage required to pass . Similarly, other sources are from Flickr images or forum posts - which are |self-published sources and cannot generally be used either. While Tarc's source ''is'' a good source, I don't really think that's enough to tip it over the notability guidelines, so at the moment, all I see is a non-notable subject with not many sources turned into a non-notable subject with lots of unsuitable sources. Sorry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG||WP:SPS)