Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable last events


 * 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. Sandstein 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of notable last events

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An incomplete and never completable list. May be interesting to merge into respective article(s), but a page like this does not need to exist. Could easily become 1000's of MB in length, but no reason to be. Jmlk 1  7  22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator, its a well referenced almanac like entry. There are three publications that list last events, so it certainly is notable. Each new entry is notable since newer ones are sourced from reliable media, and most have their own articles already. Any article can become "1000's of MB in length", but its pure crystalballing to speculate that any will. The biographies, and collected papers of George Washington fill whole library shelves. The collective papers of Thomas Edison fill an entire bunker in East Orange, New Jersey, yet somehow the Wikipedia biographies on them seem to be stable at their current size, plus or minus a few percentage points. All articles, such as list of popes, and list of heads of state will grow infinitively, if we assume time is open ended. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the essay at WP:LISTCRUFT (The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable). And possibly Overlistification. Neither are policies, but both have merit. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into appropriate parent articles - these bits of information are useful separately, but there's no common thread which makes them belong together. For example, the last survivor of the Titanic is unrelated to the last televised tobacco commercial, other than in that they can both be described with the word "last". Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Norton. Quite maintainable, because there are no new "last Mayflower Pilgrims (1699)" or "last Passenger Pigeon (1914)". The normal collaborative editing process can restrict the list to significant and unique "lasts" such as these and the last surviving veterans of major wars. Things that are "the end of an era" and are recorded in reliable and independent sources as such. As Norton said, there are several published reference works with just such lists as these, showing that lists of "lasts" are significant, satisfying WP:N, and there are multiple reliable and independent references for any individual entry (otherwise that entry would get removed by editors). Edison 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete an arbitrary list and I think it is WP:OCAT Corpx 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any overlistification here. The criteria, if well defined, seems pretty specific (a list of final events), so long as the list is well maintained (I think limiting it to historically significant eventss isn't a bad idea). So long as (1) the subject of which it is a final event is notable, (2) the final event itself is notable, and (3) the fact that it is the final event is notable, then you have a list with a very specific criteria, which is neither too narrow nor too wide, compiling information that is notable, of historical significance, and of common interest. No overlistification there. Calgary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a "final" event?  Any event with the word "last" in it?   There should be lists for every event with "middle" or "first" or "second" etc.... Corpx 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a surprisingly well-defined and organized list, complete with sources and references, as well as books dedicated to famous lasts. Using categories wouldn't address this and the material is both encyclopedic and interesting. Alansohn 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem that I see with the article is that it is not a list of notable last events so much as it is a list of deaths. A good deal of it lists the deaths last people to survive a notable event, or the last people to die in a notable event. Now, notable last events are indeed very notable (my, that was redundant), but last deaths do not necessarily have the same historic significance (and if they do, it's not as obvious, and must be judged carefully on an individual basis). I do believe a list of notable last events, or the last of a series of notable events is very encyclopedic and should be kept, and expanded. The deaths, however, I'm not so sure about, and I think that even if they are not deleted, they should be split into a separate article.


 * In addition, I think we can take the word "notable" out of the title, as I think the notability of the events is a given, considering it's on Wikipedia. And it could use some better organization, or, if not, the entire thing should be incorporated into the main timeline. Calgary 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete: There are only two sections here (by topic), but I could see tons of other topics, each of which would have to maintained... And the citations alone would be awful. Unmaintainable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not unmaintainable, given that in this instance "last" does not mean "most recent", but "final". Once the last World War One veteran dies, there will not be any more, because World War One is not going to happen again.  There are some instances where an item has to be removed.  If another man walks on the moon, Eugene Cernan is gone, and so, too, is the list of "last man on the moon" because it will return to the meaning of "most recent".  This does need to be trimmed, however, if it's going to avoid being properly labelled as indiscriminate information or mere trivia.  Consider Gerald Ford as the last surviving member of the Warren Commission... is it a surprise that a group of middle-aged men from 1963 have now passed away?  If you're going to keep this, you gotta say "no" more often.  Mandsford 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, assuming proper maintenance and sourcing. It satisfies WP:N, and concerns about this stretching to infinity are misguided for now, especially given WP:NOT. Let's not forget that, in addition to being informative, Wikipedia (within limits, and we clearly are within those limits) should have some fun or at least lighter, more trivia-like areas too. Biruitorul 01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: article will continue to expand until the end of time. I mean it goes all the way back to 1453, for crying out loud.  Yeah, let's include every single event that ever happened in the history of forever while we're at it?  Ksy92003  (talk)  02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the end of time...now that's a notable last event. Calgary 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am worried too. At the rate new entries to the article are being added, in another 500 years there will be, based on my calculations, 4 dozen entries. Thats double what we have now for the past 500 years of human history. Will 4 dozen articles be "1000's of MB"?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I've proposed a criteria/ideas for cleanup on the talk page of the article, in case ayone's interested in an outline of a criteria by whic to judge the article (although I agree that the article doesn't quite meet these standards at the moment). Calgary 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any truly notable events/deaths into individual date pages (if not already included) then delete. Thin Arthur 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per R.A.N., but add more sources. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it could become a bad article, sure, and so could  every article here. I think a better title is needed, but there is otherwise nothing wrong with it at present. DGG (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Norton, RAN, DGG, et al. Sources are pretty good, so WP:RS does not matter here.  Neither does WP:N apply, because the content is cleary notable and encyclopedic.  It is not complete junk, either -- it's a list, but not cruft, and can be maintained to a viable size.  So it should be kept. Bearian 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also like how it was re-named. Bearian 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but break into multiple sections, the last monarch of Afghanistan is nice and all but how is that relevant to the last surviving WW1 veteran? Perhaps a more categorized approach.  I would like to see a list of the world's last monarchs.  List countries which had monarchs and when/who the last one left their thrown and by what means.  But the page should perhaps  be a Last survivors of Historic events.  The last tasmanian tiger is interesting but it should be added to a separate list denoting known last extinction.   So the problem is not the List itself but simply the ambition the creator had.  What it needs are parameters.  Last what?  Last survivor of titanic is interesting but should be separate from others.  Basicly you would have a page which would offer an index of these other lists. This is needed as many of these overlap and are cross referenced.  It should be limited to living things i feel,  as were we to get into, last alarm clock with an F# bell produced may become a little overspecialized.
 * Keep. I find it useful.QueenAdelaide 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:53, 19 August 2007 (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.