Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuanian - English dictionary


 * 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 no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lithuanian - English dictionary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to not meet WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails Notability (books) Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you, for what to delete, because I'm in your specific pages I have not found the answer? Sorry.Smile.svg--Lukaslt13  --Talk  17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13
 * To be notable enough for an article the book needs to meet one of the 5 criteria listed here Notability (books) Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete there are multitudes of Lith-Eng dictionaries. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understood.--Lukaslt13  --Talk  13:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13
 * Or maybe I can move this article to wikibooks? Because, this not book, this dictionary, so as I found not a single vocabulary dictionary.--Lukaslt13  --Talk  13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep.  This seems actually to be a major dictionary. There is more than one editing, but the 2nd ed. of 1995 is in 358 libraries, according to WorldCat. A search on the subject heading "Lithuanian language Dictionaries English." show it to be the most widely held title in the subject. 	Victoria Martsinkyavitshute's 1993 dictionary is 2nd, in 193 libraries. I added this information to the article. Furthr rewritin is of course needed to improve the article, but the subject is notable.   DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep also as not to mention the WorldCat status would make it known and thus keepable. SwisterTwister   talk  01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real basis for an encyclopedia article, and the article really has nothing to say about it other than the obvious. I don't find the number of libraries that have it a convincing argument on its own. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2016 (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.