Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Victoria Cross recipients


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

List of living Victoria Cross recipients

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Usual trivial intersection of "alive" and "something else". Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN (and some OR too, the "recently deceased" is actually from 3 yasrs ago...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I refer my esteemed colleagues to the recent case of Articles_for_deletion/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War_(2nd_nomination) and associated misdemeanours. Same pig, different colour. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC) I was under the impression that the VC is no longer being awarded even in the UK; turns out that is wrong. That removes the main issue with this list (i.e., inevitable disappearance of subject), so striking. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The cross intersection rule only applies to trivial cross categorizations like 'Albanians employed by Microsoft'. I would hardly consider living recipients of the highest award of Britain as 'trivial' or 'non-notable'. As for the OR, that can easily be fixed by using a magical resource called Google to find reliable sources for the recipients. (JayPlaysStuff &#124; talk to me &#124; What I've been up to) 17:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am bemused it can be thought appropriate to describe these people as a "trivial intersection" or members of "associated misdemeanours". There are remarkably few recipients still living even though people can still be awarded the medal. In this sense the membership is unlike war survivors. We can never be certain anyone is still alive but this does not prevent us from having articles about people written in the present tense. Thincat (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide sources to support your assertions that this is a remarkable topic (not merely sources which say "X won award" - see LISTN, as linked), your argument basically sums up to WP:ITSINTERESTING or WP:ITSIMPORTANT, both of which are mere personal opinions. Notability is not inherent or inherited, so that doesn't matter either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The point (made in no uncertain terms in the closing statement of the above-linked AfD) is that we cannot have articles where the topic may disappear from one day to the next. Not its perceived notability; the topic itself, and any justification for the article's existence, will go away in a few years. [...] a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic. This problem does not apply to the various Lists of Victoria Cross recipients, and would not apply to, e.g., List of last Victoria Cross recipients by nationality. I hope the difference is clear. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete per the decision for the recently closed Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients. Note: The Congressional Medal of Honor Society maintains a list of living recipients, but the best I can find for the VC is this list at victoriacross.org.uk, which isn't as reliable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep I find these discussions interminable and overly bureaucratic, but as someone who has looked at many sources as I’ve taken articles on VC recipients to FA, I do note that there have been regular news articles in Australia that talk about how many surviving VC recipients there are, often even naming them all, stating who is the oldest and only surviving Vietnam War recipient etc. Not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, but perhaps so. I’m away from a computer for the week, but am happy to source a few of these news articles to prove my point if that would be helpful. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect my feelings are rather the same as yours. As well as the website cited above I found several British articles and also some lesser sources, but decided that to present them would merely add to the acrimony. The nomination is on the basis of WP:NOTDIR #6 which policy declares that “Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations” are not included as articles regardless of whether reliable sources report on them. Whereas the view ascribed to me above that it is a remarkable topic is declared to be mere personal opinion, that it is a trivial intersection is to be accepted as an objective fact. Separately, it is claimed above that we cannot have articles where the topic may disappear from one day to the next. But the VC is still being awarded. The speculation that one day there will be no living recipients seems to be on the basis of no evidence. These mind-numbing AfDs are so depressing. Sorry to add to the interminable discussion. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am also leaning towards Peacemaker and Thincat's reasoning here in that they are covered in separate articles in notable sources as a remarkable topic (therefore ruling out most of the alphabet soup cited in the deletes). This isn't the same as List_of_surviving_veterans_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War as that has a distinct end date. VC winners doe not as Peacemaker rightly points out that they may still be awarded. The VC&GC association keep a list of living recipients so it isn't OR either. I don't follow the argument that the recently deceased section is OR either. Recent deaths are also found on the VC&GC Association website (though I agree that the definition of recent is always up for debate). Woody (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is however very similar to Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients (whatever the most recent nomination is), which was deleted for the same reasons. The award being notable does not mean that every possible sublist of it that can be made is encyclopedic. "Alive" and "received decoration" is one amongst many ways ("Dead" and "born outside England"; "Alive" and "born on a Sunday", ...) to do it, but there's no source to substantiate that those who are alive are actually separately notable (a listing from members of the group itself would not be significant coverage of the subect [it's a mere listing] nor independent [it's very clearly note that members of this association are the same as the subject here, "living VC or GC recipients"]) from the group as a whole. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. A fundamentally unstable (and therefore unencyclopedic) list which could even become empty for some period of time. This information might reasonably be included in the encyclopedia by adding "death date" columns to the more comprehensive lists of VC recipients, but it shouldn't be a stand-alone list. Anyone who needs this info can use the more authoritative list maintained by The VC & GC Association. pburka (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete on the grounds that none of the references in the article establish the notability of the list ie that this is a group of people who are discussed significantly as a group. (the list - being so short - could also be within the appropriate Victoria Cross article even if not notable as standalone). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per 4meter4.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as noted above by Thincat and others. See here for example.  I note in current news that the Queen is planning to award further medals as part of her forthcoming Jubilee.  Recipients will include living VC holders along with others such as living holders of the George Cross.  There is therefore some practical impact to this status. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients, the same reasoning applies. Every awardee has (or is notable enough to have) a page, we don't need to know the exact number of them alive at any time. Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But the situation is different and so the same reasoning does not apply. In the case of the Medal of Honor list the closing rationale was that the list needs to demonstrate that sources deal with this topic independent of the list of all recipients; i.e., that sources have covered the currently living recipients as a body, rather than as single recipients or among all recipients but in this case we have several references completely specific this group – to the living recipients. These references have been supplied both earlier in this discussion and in the article itself. List articles have a greater purpose that merely to inform the reader of how many items are in the list. They also say who or what is in the group and (in this case) provide links to the articles we have about them. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No difference, same logic applies and logic of 4meter4 and pburka above. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are referring to the "lack of stability" arguments by 4meter4 and pburka. In the Medal of Honor discussion the closer said I'm not even giving much weight to the concerns that this list will have high turnover. For the Victoria Cross list the last substantive change was in 2018 and changes only occur every few years. When appointments are made or recipients die there is considerable press coverage so there are good opportunities for these occasional updates. Surely lists such as List of current United States governors are subject to (much) greater turnover. We have no guideline or policy against articles or list articles where the contents are liable to change but of course people are perfectly entitled to suggest changeable articles should be deleted although personally I would not support such a development. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * since the coverage of the group of living recipients coincided with the medal ceremony with Queen Elizabeth, it looks like extended media coverage of the specific event (Just like everytime English football team gets anywhere in the World Cup, there will be articles on what happened the previous times) Which puts it into routine coverage rather than specifically looking at the group as a whole. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Main articles like List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients could name those who are still living but I don't see the need for this article for this intersection. Reywas92Talk 13:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete any and all lists which are based on the 'living' adjective and are by definition temporary (and thus non-notable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN - a prestigious award and an appropriate list of recipients to aid navigation and research. I am unmoved by a rationale which says, "yes I know it is notable but it may be empty some time in the future. At that point we can revisit a delete discussion, but at this point it is a notable list. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN. We should not have lists that will eventually be empty, as that means they are inherently not notable since notability is lasting. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable content-fork from Lists of Victoria Cross recipients, generally WP:TRIVIA and fails WP:LISTN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2021 (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.