Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuania–Serbia relations


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania–Serbia relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

neither country has a resident embassy, and yes they have 3 minor agreements (including the usual double taxation one). distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all is sport or multilateral. Serbia played Lithuania in a football match in 2008, and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks this should be included because it adds to notability, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Double taxation agreements seem to be pretty common (and non-notable since they are less about "relations" and more about saving money). No embassies. Nothing that appears to be actually notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. They are not EU members. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 02:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The usual handful of agreements with no assertion of significance on the world stage. No one else has bothered to cover this subject in depth, and thus, it's non-notable per WP:GNG -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment LibStar, your deletion nominations come across as formulaic, & hurt your argument beyond the usual deletionists. At least drop that "and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks this should be included because it adds to notability" -- it is unnecessarily snide. -- llywrch (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * formulaic? they address how an article in my opinion fails WP:N. time and time again I've seen people try to push trivia to save articles. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then wait for them to do so, & then respond, instead of making a caustic comment as you have. If no one opposes the deletion (as your comment implies you expect), you end up looking foolish; if someone does, & brings up the objections you expect, they may just be trolling you. In either case, you are simply hurting the persuasiveness of your arguments by adding that line -- & its presence may encourage people to vote "keep" on nominations which should be deleted! -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * that is purely your opinion, I'm highlighting trivia that is inappropriate for establishing notability. If I don't, it's likely someone will try to insert such things that come in these searches. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While you are spending time here User:Llywrch, would you like to opine on the issue of the AfD? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.