Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Lithuania 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. Five deletes (incl poster) with good reasoning Nja²⁴⁷ 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Lithuania relations[edit]

non resident embassies, the bilateral agreements are mostly minor in nature like road transport. almost all of the coverage is in multilateral context especially in relation to the 2 countries joining an expanded EU. [1] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the usual reasons and per the new agreement on how to handle these. JJL (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct- to the table related to this article ie. Foreign relations of Cyprus, that way the search term and title remains in tact. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to Lithuania instead? Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we're back to deleting these then certainly this one should go. (Even if we're not, one a day or so serves as a reminder.) I am questioning what kind of a road transport agreement these countries would have considering Cyprus is an island in the Mediterranean and Lithuania is a Baltic country. Drawn Some (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna be the longest bridge ever built. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles are not placeholders. The article doesn't mention any relations, so there's nothing to save. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite pleas of helping merge these articles, nominator continues to noiminate new articles. I have already collected all of this information to merge, so this is a pointless empty gesture, an argument over a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant foreign relations articles- there's enough here for an entry but not an article in its own right. And that would be a bloody big bridge! HJMitchell You rang? 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Not any evidence of notability for a stand alone article, but what information this article does contain can be covered in the relevant Foreign relations of... article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.