Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Groningen (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Groningen (province)

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

Only sources are published by one source, which is the province of Groningen itself and thus a primary source. I consider this to be a hallmark of nonnotability. Laun chba ller 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that other sources are not listed, does not mean they don't exist. There is the royal decree with which it was officially enacted. There are books describing coats of arms that include the province of Groningen. Note that you do not claim it is not notable, only that the sources are inadequate, the lack of multiple sources is not, by itself, a reason to delete the article. CRwikiCA talk 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coat of arms of a country subdivision is a notable subject. I have added two additional sources: a document of the High Council of Nobility and a webpage of the Ministry of Defence. – Editør (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the sources are few, the subject itself can very well be notable. The province of Groningen is notable, therefore its arms are notable. The arms is the visual equivalent to the name and you wouldn't write about the province without including its name. To claim a lack of notability is preposterous. Arms Jones (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (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.