Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (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.

The parallel discussions of Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument conventionally considered invalid at AfD.

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

List of notable surviving veterans of World War II
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is not temporary. Back when Wikipedia was founded there were quite a few surviving WW1 veterans, but now there are none. A “list of oldest living…” article is only useful for groups that are not finite in number, like “list of living centenarians”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to keep this article, the argument that there are now no WW1 veterans is irrelevant, the title includes Living and as long as there are living veterans then the article is valid..... (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is relevant. Articles must be about topics that will actually *exist* in the foreseeable future. There will be no more living WW2 vets in what is likely to be under a decade, thus the topic of the article will be nonexistent in the foreseeable future. Therefore the article is invalid. Dronebogus
 * Two hundred years+ later, people are still debating who the last Revolutionary War soldier was. As with the WWI article, this will eventually redirect to Last surviving veterans of insurgencies and wars page. Just because it'll be irrelevant in 10-15 years doesn't mean we should delete it now. Bkatcher (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep How many times is someone going to nominate the article? It's interesting and relevant. Bkatcher (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The first nomination was closed without a consensus, the second was a pile-on “keep” vote by fans of the article that had little to do with its quality, and the third was for differnt reasons than my nom and the other two. My argument is that an article with an expiration date violates the principle that notability is not finite. Also, “it’s interesting” isn’t an argument, and neither is anything you said about veterans in other wars or what happened to older articles. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Pile on votes by fans of the article'? Odd way of saying other wikipedians didn't share your opinion so you felt their votes shouldn't count. Bkatcher (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I didn’t think their arguments were in line with Wikipedia’s deletion policy (unless the idea of non-temporary notability was only added very recently? I honestly don’t know) Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is determined by existing sources, so if there are sources that discuss this topic now it is a notable topic for an article. There are sources which discuss the topic of living WW2 veterans as a group, for example [|//www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/25/when-will-americas-last-world-war-ii-veterans-pass-away-infographic/?sh=67c6e2a31682], [], and []. In my opinion this article passes the notability requirements at WP:LISTN. Rhino131 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think that’s irrelevant if it violates the principle of “notability is not temporary”. If those articles were written 30 years ago about WW1 vets, would that be a reason to have an article on WW1 vets alive in the 90s? Of course not. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant if it means the article passes notability requirements and GNG. Why should your argument mean mine be discounted? If an article passes GNG, it passes GNG. And I believe it does. Rhino131 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because my argument is also derived from the GNG, and it’s a better argument based on it. That’s how arguments work— if one person has a better argument the other is discounted. Deletion isn’t a popularity contest where all votes are equal. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia:Notability "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I argue that reliable, independent sources can be found on this topic, therefore it passes the core component of GNG. "Better argument" is not for us to decide and I leave it up to the community to gain consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources allow us to verify that these 500-plus people are alive in September 2021? pburka (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People are removed from the list if there is no recent evidence they are alive. That does not change to the notability of the article topic, which as I said it passes, and I don't feel it is a valid reason in and of itself to delete the page. Clearly we have a different opinion on this, so let's end the debate here. Rhino131 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You just said yourself that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable". Almost nobody on this list is verifiably living. pburka (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content.--Tommieboi (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I explained my reasoning: it is an actual part of the GNG that notability isn’t temporary. If an article is about a topic that literally will not exist within the foreseeable future then it fails the GNG on that basis! Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is still a current topic where it contains people who are still living.. it's still a keep --Tommieboi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete completely pointless diminishing list, people get old and die, what is the encyclopedic value in this? Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep important information, which is restricted to notable persons. will shrink to zero within the next 15 Years anyhow. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re just affirming my point— if it will eventually cease to exist then the subjects were only notable for a limited amount of time, which means they functionally are not notable since “temporary notability” isn’t a thing on WP. Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it your position that this topic has enduring notability? 50 years from now, will it still be a notable topic? pburka (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability depends on sources and, nowadays, sources tend to endure. As for 50 years from now, that's not what we are concerned with here: we are working on the Wikipedia of today.  See Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This list will most probably be empty in the next 10-15 years. I cannot think of more compelling evidence of the transience (or temporariness) of this topic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:CRYSTAL prediction. HUman lifespan is steadily increasing and might take a big step forward in that time.  So why don't we just cross that bridge when we come to it?  Deleting the page as it approaches its peak of utility and notability would be perverse. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no realistic way human lifespan extension technology can be developed fast enough to prevent a bunch of 90-somethings from all dying within the next 15 years or so. That’s an even more absurd use of WP:CRYSTAL that’s purely in the realm of science fiction. By your logic we couldn’t write articles about future NASA missions just because aliens might hypothetically invade and wipe out life on Earth… which is still slightly more plausible then what you’re suggesting. Dronebogus (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See sources such as Changes in life expectancy 1950–2010 which explains that "Since 1840, life expectancy of the best performing country in each year has been increasing almost linearly by 2.5 years per decade." So this has already been happening for some time.  I visited my father yesterday.  He lived through WW2 and is still in reasonably good health.  The suggestion that people like him should be considered beyond hope is not accepted. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The oldest person ever was 122 when she died. In 15 years some of the youngest people on this list will be over a hundred… assuming they’re even still alive right now. And based on that calculus you provided the average lifespan of people in developed countries should increase from 85-90 to 87-92, not to over 120. Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew - When (or if) all those on the list have died would you support a move to List of notable former surviving veterans of World War II? This would, in my opinion, show the topic meets WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Moves are not done by deletion. It is normal for tenses in our articles to change as events such as the Olympics move from the future to the present to the past.  This is done by ordinary editing.  As for WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this supports Keep because it explains that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete 1. Classic WP:LISTCRUFT. 2. A category masquerading as a list. Fails WP:LSC, the vast majority of people on this list are not notable as veterans, this is incidental to their notability. How many of people on the list are mentioned as WWII veterans in the first line of their lede? 3. As pointed out here the article should not contain "notable" in the article title. Without "notable" in the title it would clearly unmanageable as there are still millions of "non-notable" veterans (Note that it took 6 years before the article title was reverted to include "notable").  DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 08:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's classic WP:CRUFTCRUFT. See also WP:NOTDUPE, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I've had so many experiences over the last decade of the 'hand of history' passing over me as I edit Wikipedia and this is certainly one of them. All of these individuals are notable, and as the article shrinks it shall become a vital resource for future historians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain what about this list will be "a vital resource for future historians"? How is knowing a declining list of surviving notable WWII veterans relevant for future historians or anyone for that matter? Mztourist (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They could draw abitary links betweem them as modern non-fic scribblers are wont to do. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically you’re admitting there’s no serious, realistic use of this list to anyone, let alone future historians? Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This list might be temporary, just as List of surviving veterans of World War One declined until it was turned into a redirect in 2012. However, this doesn't mean that the notability is temporary; the topic has been covered in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG, and this coverage will only increase over the next ten to twenty years. This is broad, long-lasting notability, and this notability will continue after the individuals covered has passed, morphing into List of last surviving veterans of World War Two. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can sort of buy that. That’s a lot more reasonable than “I like it” or “whatabout XYZ”. Still, you’re implying that “list of last surviving veterans of WW2 who are also notable for things other than that” is somehow a logical cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The cross-categorization is problematic, and might be evidence of this being WP:TOOSOON, but determining when we pass from "too soon" to the "right time" is difficult, and since we know the "right time" is inevitable I believe we are better just keeping and improving this article, rather than having a frequent debate about whether "now" is the "right time". BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's TOOSOON. A handful of the people on this list appear to, in fact, be "last surviving veterans." e.g. Ben Ferencz is the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. A growing list of last surviving veterans would be much more appropriate than this list of 580 veterans selected from among the million or more still living. pburka (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've boldly gone ahead and started the List of last surviving veterans of World War II. pburka (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:N among others.
 * The entries are almost all unverifiable. We don't have any references that say these people are living, or even that they were recently alive. As far as I can tell, inclusion in this list relies on Wikipedia editors trying and failing to find obituaries for each of the more than 500 people. That's both original research and unreliable.
 * The list is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization of (a) people who are veterans of WWII, and (b) who were young at the time, and (c) who did something else notable, and (d) who are (probably) alive today. There's little connection between these categories.
 * Any notability the group has is temporary, as we know that in another decade or two there will be no living veterans and the list will be deleted. Wikipedia requires that topics have enduring significance (see WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY). That we (almost) all agree that this list will be deleted in the foreseeable future shows that the topic's notability isn't enduring.
 * On the surface, the argument that this will eventually evolve into a "Last surviving veterans" page is compelling, but it's inaccurate and WP:CRYSTAL. These aren't the oldest surviving veterans: it includes only notable veterans (mostly notable for something unrelated to the war). Tens of millions of soldiers fought in the war and there are certainly thousands of veterans still living. I would support creating List of last surviving veterans of World War II and populating it with, e.g. Emil Boček, Lawrence Brooks (American veteran), Benjamin B. Ferencz, John Hemingway, and Kazimierz Klimczak, but that's not this list.
 * pburka (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and I do not believe has a strong case for meeting WP:GNG nor WP:LISTN. I think there are probably WP:V issues with this one as well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s circular reasoning. “The article is notable because it says it is.” The problem is that these are people not notable for military service or lifespan being treated as notable for military service and lifespan just because they’re long-lived veterans who are also notable for other reasons. It’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that is more trivial than encyclopedic. Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is an unencyclopedic cross categorization. Per Pburka, a large majority of those on the list are notable for things unrelated to their military service. Reywas92Talk 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing everyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article who is still alive and served in World War 2, is a valid grouping, clearly defined inclusion criteria, and aids in navigation. Far more useful than the category for this since it allows more information to be presented.   D r e a m Focus  01:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia since they generally aren’t notable for their military service. Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be better as a category? Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have categories for WWII participants and living people. What's the point of merging them (in a list)? Those concepts are notable separately but together... not so much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's your opinion it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia, not everyone agrees, they do not have to be notable for their military service as the title says its a list of notable survivors, so they can be notable for any part of life but have to have served in ww2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.211.240 (talk) 16:37, September 9, 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weird inclusion criteria; in a few more years there'll sadly be none and the problem resolves itself, but since when do we even entertain the idea of such temporary lists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Longer than Piotrus has been here. When the list gets short, the final survivors then become timeless.  See Last surviving United States war veterans, for example – a page that has existed since 2003. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We have no idea who those people are even going to be at this point. Keeping a “waiting list” of 500+ random people who happen to have a Wikipedia article for the next 15 years waiting to find out is completely silly. Most of these people wouldn’t even count towards logical sub-categories (i.e. who cares about the last surviving pianist to fight in WW2?) Dronebogus (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep People do care about the last surviving veterans, and though you don't (Dronebogus) doesn't mean others don't this list is used, is valid and has historical meaning, it is a source of information often used by me and i suspect many other users... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts please. You seem to be a very inactive User with a very narrow focus. You say the page "a source of information often used by me" for what? Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not need to ask permission or advise you of what i use the list for, and if i am an inactive user again none of your business. SO a source of information used by me is sufficient for you.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your inactivity and unfamiliarity with the basics of WP undermines your claims as to the importance of this list. Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ad hominem attack! Bkatcher (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s valid if the user’s inexperience is clearly demonstrated by their poor arguments. Wikipedia requires basic competence, after all. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And you too are so good, that only your opinion seems to matter. should you two really be allowed to decide on what is deleted and what isnt because i as a user am not as experienced, down right pig headedness.... now give it a rest eh boys... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you could start by signing your posts and using proper spelling and capitalization to at least make it seem like you’re willing to have a modicum of professionalism. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does insulting me make you feel better, it probably does, because you are probably an internet warrior, as hard as your keyboard... Grow up... Your going to get this article deleted come what may, that's crystal clear, just from reading your responses you can tell that you have decided that and no matter what anyone else says thats going to happen.. Conversation over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not trying to insult you, I’m advising you to follow basic guidelines on writing style and editing. You’re the one making baseless personal attacks that have nothing to do with my arguments or ability to edit Wikipedia. Also, I have no unilateral authority to delete this article; and AfD is a debate, not a popularity contest (see WP:VOTE). If you believe this article shouldn’t be deleted explain why it passes WP guidelines for notability (see: WP:N) rather than making unverifiable claims about how beloved it supposedly is. Dronebogus (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment what if we just turned this into a redirect to List of last surviving veterans of World War Two right now? It solves the major complaints about the article while preserving the content it contains for potential future use. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They're really two separate articles. Most people here were not the 'last' of anything, and not everyone in the other article is especially notable. Nice suggestion, though. Let's keep working together. Bkatcher (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well most people here are not notable for participating in WW2, while everyone at the other article is even if they don’t currently have enough sources for their own article. So most people here don’t make sense being treated as notable for being WW2 vets because they’re mostly notable for other things, whereas everyone at the other article IS notable for being a WW2 vet since they’re the all the last in a certain category related to the war. In conclusion, the other article is a superior substitute for this one since the notability criteria make much more sense. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per pburka --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a topic with significant coverage and sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And where is the coverage of this topic as a an actual topic and not just random “oldest living XYZ…” articles? Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, always suspicious on its face when the AFD nominator proceeds to !vote a particular way and is maniacally driven to rebut every alternative view. In past AFD attempts, my first impression was that this article was better presented as cross-categorization.  Some very cogent wikipedians shared their reasoning that this list gave space to briefly explain someone's service or notability in ways that a simple scan of categories doesn't allow.  This has been a useful reference for those attempting to understand what living veterans of WWII might be out there.  The comparison to an article about a pro sports season, such as the 2021_NFL_season is apt.  We all know that the season will end at some point, with some degree of likelihood (pandemic-driven delays much?) and as of this writing, the article exists and present a view of the topic at this moment in time.Cander0000 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but there aren’t articles listing currently living players in the ‘21 NFL season, or the ‘68 NFL season, or any other seasons, because that’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that will inevitably become nonexistent and irrelevant. I keep arguing with almost every !keep vote because most of them are variations on “I like it” which isn’t an argument or “well it’ll just be deleted anyway” which is exactly my argument for deletion. Now are you actually going to provide a policy-based refutation to my arguments or are you just going to complain about them existing? Dronebogus (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally I’ve also proposed turning this into a redirect for List of last surviving veterans of World War Two, which is a similar but more logical and less finite article. Doing so would leave page history intact but out of general view. Dronebogus (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A pro-sports season is very different. The number of games in the 1968 NFL season hasn't gone down since then, and a list of the games won't wither away to nothingness as time passes. This list is more similar to something like "List of NFL games in the 2021 season that have yet to be played". --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's too early. When it goes below 400 or somewhere around there it could be replaced with List of last surviving veterans of World War II. --Dorglorg (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the people on this list are celebrities or politicians who happen to be veterans. Do you think it's likely that any of these ~600 people (of the over 1 million living veterans) will be the last surviving veterans? pburka (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. I think this article is Wikipedia-worthy and shouldn't be scrapped yet, and the new article isn't ready to replace it as the last WWII veteran isn't projected to die until the 2040s.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I misunderstood you. Do you mean that this article is notable for now, but will lose notability in the future as it shrinks? pburka (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that makes no sense as a “keep” argument since notability can’t disappear— it’s either notable forever or it was never notable in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just reread my second post for my argument. You can replace the word "notable" with "relevant" then as I wasn't trying to get into any notability arguments.--Dorglorg (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per pburka QubeCube (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Historical importance of ww2 compared to regular sporting events like NFL seasons obvious. Media interest and coverage of surviving veterans proved by almost every single article listed here including their sources. Fulfills WP:NOTTEMPORARY as the topic of this article will be relevant even when there will be only 100 veterans left and it will be possible to create a redirect to another article. A redirect to List of last surviving veterans of World War Two is impossible at the moment without vandalizing Wikpedia's quality as the latter article only contains 16 surviving veterans compared to the 597 veterans listed here. Renewal6 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * — Renewal6 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely assume that the fact that I'm a newcomer at Wikipedia won't be used as a means to ridicule my IMHO reasonable arguments. Renewal6 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but disruptively, inappropriately, and prematurely closing an AfD discussion in an attempt at getting what you want will be. Dronebogus (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had already undone it, before you commented, considering it to be inappropriate for myself, so no constructive need for a reply like that. If getting what I want is in line with arguments, I consider it as neither disruptive nor premature. Renewal6 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be pretty experienced, but in case you weren't familiar, the guidelines for non-admin discussion closure are at WP:NACD. pburka (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you and mea culpa considering the fourth paragraph! Renewal6 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Rhino and Tommyboi. -  wolf  20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability is not inherited, so WWII being significant does not mean that a list of living veterans is. Unless you can find sources to back up WP:LISTN, then this is just the usual trivial cross-categorisation based on the intersection of "WWII veterans" and "living". To quote someone else, yes, this is a possible way to list this topic, but so would be "WWII veterans" and "born on a Wednesday". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
 * Delete The fact is that many of these people don't have any indication that they are alive is concerning. Lists should be permanently notable, not temporarily. Many people of all walks of life served in WW2, it is generally not a defining trait. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which specific veterans do you see here whose living status is in doubt? This page is pretty rigorously patrolled, with periodic purges of doubtful cases. As for the second part of your argument, please go up to a veteran of any war and tell them their service was not a defining trait. Bkatcher (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Something being important does not make it notable. Unless you can show reliable sources which depict this intersection ("WWII veterans" a "living") to actually be more than statistical trivia; then what you have is still just your unsupported opinion. Like unsourced statements in article; it is not convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Two invalid arguments. Firstly, recently confirmed alive status is an inclusion criterion for this list. Secondly, the military service, i. e. veteran status, of the included persons in connection with their notability has to be backed up by sources in every single case. Due to that, it's proved that this article fulfills WP:LISTN. If your second argument was valid, the military service of Princess Elizabeth, e. g., wouldn't be covered by the media, because millions of British people served in the military during ww2, so nothing relevant about Princess Elizabeth having done the same. Renewal6 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your rebuttals are text-book non sequiturs which entirely ignore my argument. The military service of the persons in question does not mean that a list of those of them that are alive is a notable encyclopedic topic. To show that the topic meets WP:LISTN, you need to find a source which specifically shows that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group; the same way, say, List of presidents of the United States is a list about a notable group (US presidents) discussed as such in sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand my argument. The articles themselves provide or should provide the sources that specifically show that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group. For example, the article about Lawrence Brooks (American_veteran) has four references, all of them verify the existence of such a group and the media coverage of them. Thus, it is proved that this list covers an encyclopedically notable topic and NOT an arbitrary cross-categorization like "List of veterans of World War II born on a Wednesday". Renewal6 (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how list notability works. Individual entrants being notable does not mean that the list itself is notable. One could make a "List of piano sonatas in C major with the first movement in ternary time"; and have sourced articles about each individual piece listed there. That would still not make the list itself a notable list topic, since it would be a trivial cross categorisation, like here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's kind of a Reductio ad absurdum argument. We have articles such as List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves or list of television performers who died during production. Living notable World War II veterans is hardly that ridiculously specific. Bkatcher (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Other similarly ill-thought-out subjects existing is basically a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument (the second one of those almost certainly warrants a deletion, the first one maybe not because it's possible there'll be something about that). Unless you can show that this list subject meets LISTN (by showing actual sources which cover this, not ones which maybe trivially mention "X is the oldest" without giving any further coverage), then it is just as trivial as any other cross-categorisation one could think of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The first is certainly notable, e.g. . If someone can produce sources like these for this list I'll happily support keeping it. pburka (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This is outrageous, Ive been crossreferencing this page for years! (As have many others, I just no longer have a wikipedia account these days as I've retired) Why was it deleted? It should of been a strong keep, as per prior conversations regarding this and these conversations, from memory - date back years. 86.144.76.56 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.101.106 (talk)


 * 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.