Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of last surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating this article for deletion because this list is equivalent to List of last living war veterans. Sources aren't cited for every person. There is no need to make an individual list for the 3rd time (the list is also present here on this article Last European veterans by war) Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: David in DC listed this discussion at WT:WOP. JJB 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. The multiplicity of longevity lists and articles is an ongoing problem. Pruning this particular manifestation should not be controversial. If the stand-alone list has been deleted and an equivalent is included in another list, one wonders why this one was created at all. But multiple lists with the same people on them seems endemic in the longevity garden David in DC (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, this being a great illustration of the type of redundancy I have been working against. The only advantage is the tabular format and indication of vacant positions, which is nominal. Without reviewing the entire list, my spot-checking of a couple lines didn't reveal anything not present in the other two versions (one of which could be made a "please see" reference to the other). If there is in fact anything not already redundant, merge it (ditto if consensus suggests tabular form is worth saving, to which I say no). Note, the issue is not sourcing, which is passable, but (1) the questionability of whether such a list has actually been compiled anywhere besides WP (which I admit is possible but probably not sufficiently so to create new-article notability), and (2) the very limited nature of such a "topic" being more appropriate to inclusion in a larger article. Do not redirect as this is not a search target in any way. Perhaps the other two articles could be merged. JJB 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the section. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as this seems only barely notable 200 years ago, and less so now. The list is arbitrary in its inclusion of individuals.  What defines the age requirement or point in time to be included? —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  06:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Redirecting her to the people section on List of German supercentenarians doesn't make sense because only verified supercentenarians can remain there (that have been the oldest in Germany for a period of time). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, this comment appears to belong at Articles for deletion/Margarethe Zinndorf (2nd nomination), to which I am copying it. JJB 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems both redundant and trivial. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of last living war veterans: per nom, the list seems redundant. However, I do think that there is value in having a redirect, unlike JJB, as there is a slim possibility this redirect could be useful.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all those lists are really unnecessary: top 10 sandwiches eaten in space, shortest presidents in the Americas, fastest cars driven over the Danube. Get rid of them all. Including this one. I know some research has been done here but it is really not for a decent encyclopedia Benqish (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2011 (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.