Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lithuania. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lithuania|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lithuania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board

Scan for Lithuania related AfDs

Scan for Lithuania related Prods
Scan for Lithuania related TfDs

Lithuania

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robertas Lozinskis

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

Potentially notable pianist. No social media, no streaming. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about performances given, such as Source 7 now in the article. Those aren't enough to show notability. An interview is about all I find. Not enough sourcing for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, confirms what I found. Lots of performance information, tickets and so on. scope_creep^Talk 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable. Seems to be a general musician. Sources do not establish much on notability either. Early life section seems like OR, which means soemone close to subject wrote that. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2025 (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.

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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxylabs

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

Poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Noting that some review articles exist about Oxylabs, although they appear to contain multiple affiliate links. The only piece of significant coverage I'm seeing about the company exists in the form of this TechRadar article about a lawsuit.^[1] 30Four (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No RS, no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It is among the most notable residential proxy providers, along with Luminati. There's quite some technical discussion and brief company description in a book [1] published by O'Reilly Media, which is one of the top publishers in its category. There's also mentions in a lot of papers like [2] or [3], including significant technical discussion involving independent research of its network [4]. Also an in-depth review at PCMag [5]. And the source mentioned in the nomination. In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH, it seems a bit borderline though. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no majr coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Every company cannot have their own page, they need to show that they are notable outside of just being a company. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.techradar.com/news/judge-orders-mediation-after-jury-orders-oxylabs-to-pay-dollar75m-in-latest-episode-of-proxy-wars

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.

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 redirect‎ to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius conflict

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

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([6][7]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([8][9]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it’s more commonly called the “Vilnius dispute” and it was a major diplomatic row in the interwar period. Perhaps a move to a new title would be an improvement? Mccapra (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute without prejudice against a later split. This topic is notable. It doesn't matter if it was mostly at diplomatic level. We have several articles on diplomatic conflicts, and that has nothing to do with notability. This dispute is well covered in reliable sources. However, Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute seems to be better written and more complete, so I see no reason to have a standalone article at this moment. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute per above. I agree: this potentially could be split out, but I can't see assessing an unfinished article against what seems to be a fairly complete section in the main article. If the section grows enough in-place, it can be split out. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. The topic may be notable, but the poor execution (this is very undersourced) is not good enough for an article created recently (2024). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute for now without prejudice against a later split. (Wikipedia:Summary style) This topic is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 20 May 2025 (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.

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 deleted as G4. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to have been previously deleted on Feb. 2024 as complete WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lithuania, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 5 May 2025 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania

Lithuania

Robertas Lozinskis

Oxylabs

Vilnius conflict

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also