Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean War veterans (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that a list with potentially over 100,000 entries is not useful.  Sandstein  23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Korean War veterans

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

DELETE - This article was removed from deletion by Stwalkerster on 27 November 2008 for reasons that are unexplained. Previously, all lists of veterans (e.g., List of World War II veterans, List of Spanish American War veterans, List of World War I veterans, etc.) were deleted as they are cumbersome, cannot be complete, and serve no useful purpose when the category tag is properly used. Please support this article's second deletion. Spacini (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, how can you say this serves no useful purpose? You people are weird. Anyway it might be complete but it's not cumbersome at the moment. Perhaps it should be more like People of the Spanish Civil War but I like the notes. Juzhong (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there like some kind of trick to using the category tag? Maybe you can use google to get the first lines of the articles, is that what you mean by "properly used"? Juzhong (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists such as this do not serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia; they provide no criticism, context, or analysis. As I noted, all other such lists were deleted many months ago.  This list was resurrected with no explanations provided as to why it was restored.  Your example of the People of the Spanish Civil War category is an excellent example.  People of the Korean War would be an excellent alternative to this list.  Spacini (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This provides context, because tells me who the fuck they were and what they did during the war, exactly what a category doesn't do. You people have a bizarre definition of "useful". Juzhong (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the list serves no useful purpose. And lest anybody accuse me of knocking the flag, let me say that this is certainly not a list to honor Korean War veterans.  Why is Neil Armstrong on here, but his fellow Ohioan David Abernathy  would not be welcome here, despite a greater sacrifice?  Because this is a "List of Korean War veterans who have Wikipedia articles written about them", and that is indeed covered by a category.  Contribute to your local honor guard.  Visit a vet at a nursing home or a VA hospital.  Attend a ceremony and thank the veterans who are recognized there.  We can acknowledge our veterans in ways other than making a Wikipedia list of celebrities.  Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't think some people might want to avoid articles like Neil Armstrong's in favor of those who are notable for what they did during the war? Juzhong (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm misunderstanding the question, please let me know. My answer would be "no" -- the list doesn't have information for people to decide whether Neil Armstrong is more notable for what he did during the war than any other person on the list; nor should it ever be asserted that Neil Armstrong is better than "this veteran", or not as good as "that veteran".  However, the purpose of the list is to show "notable" persons who served in Korea, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of regular people who served in Korea.  I understand the point about categories being difficult to search; and I'll admit that the it-would-work-better-as-a-category argument is one of the more idiotic arguments against a list (as if we had to choose between one or the other!).  That being said, however, this is nothing more than an exclusive, members only, People magazine list of certain persons who went to Korea and who got the chance to come home and prosper in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.   While both this list and a category can list blue-links who were in Korea during 1950-53, the category states, facts-only, no judgment, no point-of-view, that the persons within it also happen to have served in Korea War.  Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, some people on the list just happened to go Korea and had the chance to come home and prosper, and then some people are notable have wikipedia articles for what they did during the war. E.g. Léo Major, Zhang Taofang, No Kum-Sok. Anyway never mind, I can see from the votes below that this place is just a stupidity farm. Juzhong (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this article was fresh produce from the stupidity farm. It's just that nobody at the market is buying it. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, by trying to argue and innocently making false and disprovable statements you actually gave me the impression it might be worth talking to you. Juzhong (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I enjoy reading your comments. You're getting better at sarcasm.  Keep practicing.  Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep taunting, dirtbag. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced, potentially a list of thousands of people, and better covered by a category. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the number of people make notes less valuable and not more so ? Juzhong (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An obvious case where a category is much more appropriate.  --Clay Collier (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are going to delete this list. Instead you will present me with a long list of celebrities whose names I don't recognize. I will have no way of finding people who actually had a significant role in the war except by going through every single one (that google idea doesn't work). I am pondering the best response to this, and I don't think it will involve trying to work within the system. Juzhong (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can always userfy the article, make any improvements that you see fit, and then bring it back up. As far as narrowing a list down from all participants to major participants, there are a lot of books about the Korean War, whether in a public library or online at Google books.  In some cases, a book is quicker to search than the Internet.  I was editing a list of the officers executed after Stauffenberg's 1944 assassination attempt, and borrowing Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich saved a lot of time.  Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - there were potentially hundreds of thousands of veterans of the Korean War. Even if it was restricted to those deemed "notable", who is to say one is notable and another is not? A list that serves no encyclopaedic service to the Wikipedia community. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a meaningful categorisation of these people (for instance, Peter Cundall is known only as a horticulturalist), unsourced, potentially huge and a topic for which a category is much better suited. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no answer to why its better NOT to distinguish between random horticulturalists and people who are encylopedic because of their role in the war? Juzhong (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:CLN and WP:SALAT. First of all, the restoration of this article is not "unexplained" if you simply go to the admin's talk page and look at the deletion log; this was a routine restoration of a PROD-ded article upon request. Second, the nominator gives no reason based in Wikipedia policy to delete this list, merely citing other lists that were deleted and "no useful purpose"; and "cumbersome" and "cannot be complete", neither of which are reasons to delete. This list serves the same purposes as any list on Wikipedia, information, navigation, and development. The existence of categories is not a reason to delete a list; list and categories complement each other, providing different methods of navigation and different methods of building and gathering information. I fail to see any significant difference between this list and People of the Spanish Civil War, other than the way the names are organized—if the title of the article is the issue then deletion is not required. People who were killed in the Korean war but are not otherwise notable are not included because Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nothing requires this to be a list of "celebrities", plenty of notable people are not "celebrities". "Unsourced" is not a reason to delete this list either, as I suspect every person on the list is verifiable and a source could likely be found on the individual's article. One could potentially add a citation to every entry on this list, but I don't believe it is required by any policy as long there is a source cited on each linked article. "Potentially a list of thousands" is also not a reason to delete, as the list can be split if it gets too large. List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (split alphabetically) covers over 8,000 people. DHowell (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I you may misunderstand the difference between the People of the Spanish Civil War category and this article, which is nominated for deletion. As an example, People of the Spanish Civil War is a category tag that is placed at the bottom of an article with relevance to the category.  Folks wishing to see other articles with that category tag can then follow the link to get the list, which is not an article.  I am not opposed to tagging any of the individuals currently listed on the article with a category--such as People of the Korean War--because it creates an index, of sorts, not a distinct article.  I do not understand your argument about "memorials"; that is something that is not in question or dispute. Spacini (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is both a category and an article. -- Banj e  b oi   02:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "index" the category provides is one full of entries which are irrelevant to the topic, with no way to distinguish between them. Juzhong (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DHowell. -- Banj e  b oi   15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete More unnecessary listcruft garbage. This is precisely the thing that categories are for. Even beside that point, it is totally unmaintainable and will forever be arbitrary and incomplete. Trusilver  20:07, 6 December 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.