Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest military veterans who died in 2010


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

List of oldest military veterans who died in 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unencyclopedic list that will be difficult to maintain with much accuracy. I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
 * RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable subject. Being "difficult to maintain" is no reason to delete.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there are no stated criteria for inclusion. there is no indication of what "oldest" means in this context. it could be a list of the single oldest by country and by war, or the single oldest by country for any war. if we have multiple entries per country and per war (which we do for the 2009 article), then its a subjective list of who would be considered "old". if someone wants to define the inclusion criteria, explain what the list actually consists of in the lede, and if necessary rename it, fine. but as it stands, it doesnt make any sense to me. (i welcome explanations).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I should point out that the creator of this list is blocked until 1st May, with no access to their talk page. May I suggest that the article be userfied until then? Once the account is unblocked, I can move it back to article space, and the AfD can be continued at that point. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What insight into this discussion do you hope this editor will be able to provide?  I dont see the need for stalling this process to accommodate an editor who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. This editor has not been editing long though they've had a number of articles deleted for notability concerns including an autobiographical one.  This editor lost his editing privileges and those privledgs includes these articles and this AFD itself.--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, RadioFan. You bring up a fair point - and so I will leave this discussion as it is. FWIW, I have no firm decision on keep/delete at the moment, but I may contribute to this AfD later --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oldest military veterans. I do see a bit of encyclopedic value in these, if the scope is much more clearly defined: in this case, the definition of "oldest" must be explicitly stated. They are well-referenced and don't seem to be indescriminate, nor is it dominated by redlinks (none at all!), so we know that notability is not an issue. I figure that the article Oldest military veterans is overdue for a death section anyway.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: both of these articles were declined a PROD on 7 April. also PRODded the related Oldest military veterans and User:Anthony Winward/Oldest Military veterans and likewise declined.  bahamut0013  words deeds  17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to me to be a trivial and arbitrary list. It has already been pointed out that there is no criteria for inclusion here - the meaning of "oldest" has been left entirely undefined. And even if there were one, let's say all veterans over 100 go on the list, why would any number be any more or less arbitrary for the definition of oldest? What makes a veteran who died at the age of 100 any different than one who died at 99 or 95? Even if they were renamed "List of centenarian veterans who died in 20XX", it would still need to be explained why this was a notable intersection. Canadian   Paul  06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge if possible. If not, delete. Mr. Babcock is the only person on the list, and he has his own article. As stated, there is no set criteria for inclusion.Mk5384 (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is adequately covered by List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-10. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:05, 18 April 2010 (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.