Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lubawa County

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Unanimous keep. Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Lubawa County
My research, which has been confirmed by two other wikipedians who claim knowlege on the subject, has determined that there is actually no Lubawa County in Poland. Therefore no article by this title should exist. There is a Lubawa which already has an article, but no Lubawa County. So, this page should be deleted, as it is innacurate and impossible to fix. Gblaz July 1, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep based on research below. Unsure at the moment. I did find an article at http://www.pgsa.org/Counties/countiesB.htm which claims to be from 1880 and mentions this county (and doesn't seem to be sourced from Wikipedia).  Is it possible that this is just a former name of an area now called something else? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 1, 2005 01:41 (UTC)
 * Keep Following the "what links here", I found the phrase, "powiat lubawski" on Pomeranian Voivodship. Via Google, this took me to a page of the same name, which appears to be a history of the area, based on a terrible P->E translator that I used. Someone who reads Polish should check out that page, and inject appropriate facts (including the current status, if any, of this region). -Harmil 1 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)
 * Great research, Harmil. Using the history page you found, I translated it with Poltran.  It sure didn't make easy reading, but I think I got enough to confidently say that Lubawa County did indeed exist at one time, at least.  Needs expansion and possibly even renaming, but should definitely stay. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 1, 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made mistake. There was Lubawa County in Poland 1945-1950. Sorry! Keep Vuvar1 1 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)


 * Ok, so much for my attempt to be thorough... So my vote is now for Keep.  At least I got the page off the Speedy Delete list long enough to get the right answer.  Gblaz July 1, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
 * Keep: Looks valid enough, expandable. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:50 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.