Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (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   keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War I
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A 'list' that contains only one list item stops being a list and becomes an isolated piece of trivia which in this case, is already amply covered in the named person's biography article.PrussianKaiser (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "Last surviving veterans of World War I". As frequently discussed on the articles talk page and, I believe, the previous nomination for deletion, the options after the last veteran has died were to either replace the current current content of the article with that I have mentioned (and rename as such) or to redirect to such an article or to redirect to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–11. I favour the former. In the meantime, as there is still a living veteran (and 1 era-veteran) which no longer constitutes a list the article should simply be renamed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested by DerbyCountyinNZ. There has been plenty of discussion/argument on the Talk page, and the closest we have to consensus seems to be to keep this article in some form until the last one dies - so I'd go for a rename for now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename per above. Clearly an encyclopedia-worthy topic. A military death count of 9.75 million in the Great Imperialist War, I learned something today... Carrite (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep i think this article should be deleted when all the veterans have passed away, also it should be kept incase if anyone else comes forward claiming to be a veteran or if someone is verified as a veteran. Tony (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until the last veteran dies. At that point it ought to be redirected to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. "Last surviving veterans of World War I" is a bit close to the title of that page. Hut 8.5 15:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "by country" list would not be the same as a "last to die" list, which wouldn't even include Claude Choules. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons that I have stated before- to me at least, a list can still have one entry; there remains the theoretical possibility that another veteran may emerge, and it also provides a direct, googlable answer to someone who does not know if there are any surviving veterans alive. Having said that, DerbyCountyinNZ's suggestion has a good deal of merit and I would also be happy with that. I'm baffled as to why some editors want to remove the list from Wikipedia before nature does the job for them.Moldovanmickey (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator had been indef blocked as a sock - Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep: It's starting to look a lot like Christmas ... in any event, seeing as there are two people listed in the article, perhaps the nominator might wish to reexamine his counting.  Ravenswing  14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename as per DerbyCountyInNZ. After the last survivor has died, hold a new vote on what to do. --Rye1967 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The article has been around for probably a decade, and for the sake of a few months to want to get rid of it now is just plain 'nasty.' The article has served its purpose and it is not beyond the realms of possibility another WWI veteran could be discovered. What to do then? Reinstate the page? A more sensible course of action would be to continue to let the natural evolution of the page take place and when there are no more veterans, then it will either disappear or morph into something more appropriate for that time. That time is not now.202.139.104.226 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A Speedy snowball keep, or at least until everyone remaining on the list is dead. Then we can delete it. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep As written previously, this article has been on wikipedia for a very long time and has a lot of people following it. Why not let it run its natural course?
 * Keep - why is this article even up for AfD?--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 13 May 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.