Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilnius letter


 * 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 Keep. Ruhrfisch 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vilnius letter

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

The article has "content not verifiable in a reliable source" as stated in Deletion policy. Simply put, it has no references and has been tagged for almost a year. I have been unable to find any verifiable sources for this topic, whose importance should be easy to verify. For all we know, this could be a total fabrication. Truthanado (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article somewhere in my userspace. It's sad that the article can't be improved by regular editing processes and has to go through deletion, editing in an unknown corner, lost in the meantime, and put back in after 3 or 4 edits, but we operate by consensus, and if the majority of the !voters are immediatists, I guess it's the only solution.  Celarnor Talk to me  19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This rings as a pointer to a conspiracy theory.  Unless something is verifiable to this regard, it needs to go. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going neutral for now - I'm probably going to go keep, but I want to see more discussion here. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going keep, in agreement with discussion. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Text of the letter (link was on talk since 2004). Renata (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Renata. You changed my mind.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are easy to find that discuss the letter.  There are also numerous print sources.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are some more news sources. Celarnor Talk to me  02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: And more scholarly sources. A lot of these later mentions are trivial, but the sheer number of them combined with the depth of some of the more in depth ones I've provided higher up go a long way towards establishing notability and verifiability.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Add. Those. Sources. To. The. Article. So. We. Can. Close. As. Keep. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not strictly necessary. That is doable by the regular editing process (i.e, if something can be improved by regular editing processes, it isn't a good candidate for deletion per BEFORE and DEL); since notability has been established and it has been shown that the article is viable, it should go back into the mainspace so it can be worked on without stress, 5-day deadlines and the other messiness associated with AfD.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable and verifiable enough. —PētersV (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: per PētersV. --Martintg (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per PētersV. -- JulesN   Talk  05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much as I agree with the original nomination, it appears this one can be resolved.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article definitely needs extensive work, and I could see it as reasonable to call for it to be deleted without prejudice, to be recreated when an editor was willing and able to produced a better version. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Extensive work is not a rationale for deletion. Unsalvageable is, but this is definitely salvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that it is salvageable, but note what the original nominator reported: “no references and has been tagged for almost a year”. If no editor will repair this article, then it should be pulled (again, without prejudice) from mainspace.  I am not here voting for deletion, because I think that this very project page has a good chance of provoking an editor to work on the article.  I am simply noting that it is reasonable to want an article removed from mainspace if it indefinitely remains essentially static and unencyclopedic. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks as if you in particular are making just such improvements! Great! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability established by references. The article seems to exaggerate the letter's perceived importance in the world outside the signatories, but this is not a crippling problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some subsequent editing is addressing the problems noted by the nominator. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability established by references.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a major declaration by several countries for support of the war in Iraq. How could that not be notable?  Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - can we WP:SNOW this, as I no longer disagree with consensus? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether the article is notable or not has never been contested. It was nominated for AfD because it had NO references for almost a year. Since nominated, one external link and one reference have been added. The external link is the purported text of a letter, which needs an independent source for verification; and the reference is a headline in Newsweek that requires a subscription in order to read the article. Several discussors have described additional references. If these were added to the article, then maybe we could end this AfD discussion. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a summary of knowledge found on the WWWeb. That issue of Newsweek can be found in public and college libraries all over America. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what AfD is for. AfD is for unsalvagable articles.  This is not unsalvagable.  What it needs is improvement, not deletion.  Please review deletion policy and before nominating articles for deletion so this kind of unnecessary thing can be prevented in the future.  Also, print sources are fine.  You'll probably want to review verifiability and reliable source guidelines as well, given your statements here.  It's alright to print something that needs a subscription to read; there are other things in existence then the internet.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: We do have a link to the full text of the letter. How much more is required than a suitable introduction and a bit of context? Also, there's a difference between unreferenced, as in unsubstantiated and POV claims, versus unreferenced, as in not having a link to some source regarding something over which there is no controversy. It seems to me that deletion as the solution is the editorial equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. —PētersV (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep subject in question is covered in variuos sources, therefore any additional improvements can be made to his article. M.K. (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2008 (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.