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

Simonna

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

Promotional autobiography for notable actor and singer. None of here roles are good for NACTOR. No sign of any charting/gold/rotation/major awards for her music. Her Eurovision participation was only in qualifying, she did not make it to Eurovision. No major awards. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. (Whilst I call it an autobiography, multiple people (including her) are using the one account that contributed much of the content) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 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 ([1][2]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([3][4]). 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]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania

Lithuania

Simonna

Angeline Kavindu Musili

Vilnius conflict

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also