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

Tesonet

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

Fails WP:NORG and lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no expert on the subject at all, I only made this redirect because the company bought a team from 777 Partners, but I believe this is notable. It's the company behind Nord VPN and has now bought the London Lions; it's the investment vehicle of tech billionaire Tomas Okmanas. Most of the corporate news would be in Lithuanian so we really must hear from Lithuanian users WP:BEFORE. This page has had problems before with being expanded into an article by users with obvious WP:COI but that doesn't negate notability. This sadly again seems to be the case with the expanding user using blatant promotional terms such as "in-house talent" instead of employees. Page needs cleanup and neutralisation, not deletion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Some terms could be paraphrased differently, but at the same time, they might have simply been taken directly from the sources, and the creator may not have realized they sounded promotional. I think this page should be kept, as the company is well-known and frequently mentioned across various sources. Including such background information would be beneficial. Regarding the Lithuanian sources, I used a translator and conducted some research. In my opinion, they appear legitimate. I believe they were referenced because it is a Lithuanian company, so naturally, the majority of the sources come from there and are not always easily translatable.BandarSale7 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on present citations such as Delfi, BBC, LRT and 15min.Hkkingg (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - clearly notable based on a search using Google’s Lithuanian site.^[1] —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonna

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

Promotional autobiography for non 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete her page if you think she is notable? Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops, missed a word, thanks for noticing. I've fixed it. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:56, 2 June 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I am moved by the veteran editors arguments here. The nominator should put the geographic context of this woman's achievements in context. It is a considerable accomplishment. Removing this article would continue towards greater unconscious bias on the encyclopedia. Nayyn (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with both above. In geographic context this is a notable achievement. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - WP:GNG refers to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how that applies here, based on the references in article:

[2] and [10] do not mention her at all

[1], [4], [5], [6], and [9] are from her current or former workplaces (embassy website or the associated government)

[7] subject’s name is included in a very long list

[8] subject is mentioned (once in text, once in photo caption) as having been one of multiple speakers on a panel

[3] provides two sentences in total about her and her goals

Even if we accept that 2 sentences is sigcov, we would still be missing another source. Zzz plant (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I left a long relisting comment but it seems that I have to leave another. Stating that you prefer to "Keep" is insufficient, those editors need to specify secondary sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania

Lithuania

Tesonet

Simonna

Angeline Kavindu Musili

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also