Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1642 in Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Redirect can be discussed on talk page (non-admin closure) CTJF83 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1642 in Ireland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially no content, unsourced, needs to be redirected. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to what article exactly. SunCountryGuy 01 23:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:SK ground 1 apply here for a speedy keep? Nominator proposes redirection, but you don't need an AfD to redirect.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without this article, the Category:1640s in Ireland category would be missing an important article. Pburka (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a bigger scheme of years in Ireland in the 1640s. Maybe it should be merged into 1640s in Ireland, but that discussion isn't for here. Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Did the nom think it couldn't be sourced? Articles are only deleted if they are unverifiable, not merely unverified at present. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.