Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province

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 Speedy close consensus is that a mistake was made. It happens to us all. Good additions to the article, time to move on. Mandsford 00:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Leinster Province[edit]

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

A search for references found no published (gBooks) WP:RS for "New Leinster Province" the only mention is in New Zealand History By Various Authors at Wikibooks, fails WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this editor for real? This map is from the NZ Government agency that looks after history. Came up as the fifth item for me in a Google search. Schwede 66 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Important NZ historical article that should never have been proposed for deletion Kahuroa (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few references so it should pass verifiability now. The article is small and unlikely to get bigger so maybe a merge with the other early provinces should be considered? AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A topic only "fails" WP:V if it's unverifiable, not if it's currently unverified to the nom. In this case, not only does it "pass" WP:V, it passes WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable in NZ history, with plenty of sources to indicate both its notability and veracity. The fact that few of these sources are online ones is often irrelevant with historical topics - books often contain far more of that sort of information. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised by this nomination from a seasoned editor. Moriori (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable by reference to any 1960s primary school atlas. Unfortunately such an atlas would still be copyright so cannot be reproduced in this article; but hard-copy-only sources do not appear to be prohibited by WP:V. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeep Clearly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:00, 5 February 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.