Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving veterans of military engagements


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of last surviving veterans of military engagements

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Newly created article that fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Is partly a cutout of this article List of last survivors of historical events and is pretty much just a WP:SYNTH of news reports and records about old veterans who died and the random battles they served in. There are also random military related actions included like Hitler's failed Beer Hall Putsch. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that work can be done to clean this article up to address both WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, I think that it should stay. As for the article being "partly a cutout of the list of List of last survivors of historical events," this is an important reason why it should remain; at present, there is hardly a place suitable to keep this information. Until recently, there were many solely battle-related entries on the 'last survivors' article and, despite many of these actions (i.e. storming of Bastille, Gettysburg, Verdun) having lasting cultural, political, military, and or technological impacts, (before moving them to other 'lists') I saw hardly any reason to keep these entries on the article as they present the question "why not include last survivors of wars on this list too?" For the most part, wars have significant impacts as well so why do they not belong on the same list? Why should we keep these two separate lists? The most effective answer to me is that providing a list for topic and  one for the other prevents one long list from being an WP:INDISCRIMINATE mess of entries. For this reason, having an article devoted to this field of interest will allow both mentioned lists to better focus on information pertinent to their titles, only last vets of wars and, ideally, last survivors of non-directly related combat events, in the future. Additionally, the reason for the temporary WP:SYNTH is because it is my intention to remove all remaining solely battle-related entries from both the 'last survivors' and 'last surviving veterans' (most of which I had added myself years ago and had found no better place to put them) and put them onto one battle-focused article so as to not needlessly clutter up either article. Lemunz (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lemunz I admire your passion for this topic, but your defense of this article is a long way of saying WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Leaning toward keep with much pruning. Last survivors of famous battles get some press, but ones like the Landing at Suvla Bay should be removed with extreme prejudice. Also a distinction between the Battle of the Somme and the first day on the Somme is rather picayune. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Clarityfiend Could you please explain why this article passes WP:LISTN and is not simply an WP:INDISCRIMINATE Syntheses of random news coverage and old records? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the historical events list, just on size considerations alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Clarityfiend Please read the third sentence in WP:LISTN and tell me how this article doesn't fail policy? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article either and personally, I don't think that other article passes WP:LISTN either. I do appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, but the article itself is fatally flawed in its premise. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. To be honest I can't see any problem with any of these. The first day of the Somme is the most notable (and bloodiest) day in British military history, so deleting that seems silly. And what precisely is wrong with Suvla Bay? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp The problem is this article fails polices like WP:LISTN. What reliable sources publish lists of last veterans of individual battles/skirmishes/random military events. None do, as this article is a WP:SYNTH of random news coverage and old records. Your defense of the article is just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, it doesn't fail any policy. It's well-sourced, verifiable and I would say that the last surviving veterans of notable battles are, if not individually, then certainly collectively notable. It's certainly not indiscriminate, since its criteria are clear. If you think it does fail a policy then you'd better start nominating many of our thousands of lists for deletion, as a very large number of them fall into the same category. Otherwise I'd say this nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does fail policy as already described. Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid defense to stave off deletion. Each article needs to stand or fall on its own merits, and this one falls flat. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Please tell me what reliable sources discuss the subjects in this list as a group in a similar manor. None do, do they? Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A Wordpress article is nowhere close to a reliable source. Suvla Bay is one of very many obscure engagements of the war, and none of the major media outlets has paid the slightest attention. Nor do they make a distinction between survivors of the first day and the whole battle Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Suvla Bay is obscure?! My God... -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It does not fail any policy set forth by WP:LISTN.   As long as as it well sourced,   it is no different than the List of last survivors of historical events.   I agree with Necrothesp, this feels like the nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT!Feickus (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Feickus WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Please tell me what reliable sources discuss the subjects in this list as a group in a similar manor. None do, do they? As I said, this article doesn't meet policy. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; this is basically a gigantic synthesis of a bunch of unrelated events, which is absolutely not what Wikipedia lists are for. It's not an actual topic that reliable sources cover, it's throwing together disparate sources to form a hodgepodge. "Military engagements" isn't even remotely well-defined either, having an entry here on the Beer Hall Putsch says about all that needs to be said on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: this is indeed a wonderful case of indiscriminate synthesis. I may change my mind if keepers exhibit sources discussing this concept as a list. — JFG talk 05:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP and as a reasonable fork of List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. LISTN, which is cited by the nom, is not the be all and end all of whether to keep or delete lists. Nevertheless, there is definitely sourcing discussing the last survivors of individual battles. LISTN requires that the list topic (not the individual members together) "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic has, so the list should be kept. Of course, we could have hundreds of lists along the line of List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Trafalgar or List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Waterloo, but I think that this catch-all list is preferable. Regardless, LISTN acknowleges that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is one such list. A reader or researcher would be done a disservice if this list were removed as, from LISTPURP "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." I do agree that the scope of the list does need to be refined, though. schetm (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @schetm Wrong. As stated above, WP:LISTN is very clear about the need to be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which in this case would be something like a group list of last veterans from WW1 battles, American Civil war battles, Napoleonic wars battles and etc. There are no independent reliable sources like that. The Times link you provided is not a reliable source or indpendent, it was just a letter to the editor (not to mention about just one battle), and the Waterloo source is an article about one veteran. What your proposing is pure WP:SYNTH to create something out of nothing. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12 Wrong. As stated above, WP:LISTN is very clear that stand alone lists can be kept regardless of the notability guideline if they satisfy LISTPURP. This one does, so it should be kept. schetm (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained to you, this is not a real topic. It is a WP:SYNTH of information an editor personally liked that has no basis in real world independent reliable sources and based on the zero real world sources on this topic, basically no one is searching for this, so no, it doesn't serve any purpose and get a notability pass. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Pageview stats say that over 100 have been searching for this in the past day, which is high given the article's only a few days old. You keep citing SYNTH. SYNTH isn't a stand-alone policy: it's part of WP:No original research. It specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. As there is no original research in question here, there is no SYNTH according to our standards. So then, WP:LISTN, which leads to WP:LISTPURP applies, and this list meets point two of LISTPURP to a tee. schetm (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is quite the notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @TH1980 Care to provide any independent reliable sources to back up that claim which has as yet been unfounded in this AfD? None of the keep voters have been able to produce any evidence whatsoever in reliable sources that this grouping is a real topic. Your vote is really just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12 I will not be bullied or goaded into a pointless argument with you about this. If the events these last survivors participated in are not notable enough for you, I do not see what can be, so stop trying to "own" this page and beat it.TH1980 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @TH1980These individual events are notable on their own, but last survivors of battles throughout history are not a real group or set discussed in independent reliable sources, so this article fails WP:LISTN. This is policy, not my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "ownership" to respond to what you perceive as a flawed argument. Other than that, I unsurprisingly concur with all of the points above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is a reasonable fork. Also WP:SYNTH doesn´t apply. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And how might that be the case? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How might what be the case? ...GELongstreet (talk)
 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights, SYNTH doesn't apply here because there is no SYNTH. To quote from my previous comments, SYNTH isn't a stand-alone policy: it's part of WP:No original research. It specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. As there is no original research in question here, there is no SYNTH according to our standards. schetm (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @schetm First of all, there is undisputedly original research in this article, such as: Most last survivors of particular engagements were junior officers or soldiers/naval ratings of non-commissioned rank in the early years of their service careers at the time. That unsourced and unsourcable statement is half of the description of this article. Secondly, putting these people together like this IS WP:SYNTH. No reliable sources group these individuals together like this, and this article is implying that they belong together as a set, so it fails WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not SYNTH. WP:SYNTH forbids the combination of "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There is none of that here. Reliable sources call the people listed here the last survivors of a conflict and, therefore, they belong together as a set. That's It may be true that "no reliable sources group these individuals together like this," but that isn't SYNTH as defined by Wikipedia, as no conclusion is implied that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is a navigation list, explicitly meeting WP:LISTPURP, and is not at all original research. If this article is to be defined as SYNTH, then we need to blow up Wikipedia's entire system of categorization, which does much the same thing in code as this article does in prose. You may wish to read What SYNTH is not for further explanation and clarification of what SYNTH is on Wikipedia. I certainly concede that the lede needs to be rewritten, that the sourcing needs to be improved for some entries, and that many of the entries need to be pruned, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. schetm (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:Verifiability is an issue, particularly for the more obscure battles. I've already started examining them and am finding "sources" that don't support (or even mention) the claim. Even when they do, I have to question whether a newspaper, such as The Toledo Blade, has made any real attempt to confirm something that occurred so long ago. I feel that only the most famous clashes should be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with schetm, there are many reliable sources which name the last survivors of significant battles. No original research is needed to identify such survivors, and no synthesis is needed to reach the conclusion that the last survivors of significant battles is a notable subject. Some of the statements may need either better sourcing (if reliable sources do indeed state that most last survivors were junior officers, etc), or editing/deleting - but per WP:CONTN, that is not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2019 (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.