Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (3rd 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. I can't say I see a clear consensus on what exactly to do with this content, but there clearly is not a consensus to delete it outright. Discussion can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The last one died today. The only "entry" is someone who wasn't a World War I veteran. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Due to Florence Green death, and the non related WWI person Józef Kowalski (Polish-Soviet War, WWII)


 * Delete, now that the last surviving veteran has died. We don't need a list saying "there are no surviving veterans of World War I". We don't have an article about List of surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars either. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentPut your hat or hand over your heart and bow your head, to mark the passing of an era, in which 65 million brave folk were alive, who participated in the "war to end all wars." Edison (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We should have an article listing centenarian veterans instead, i.e., an article of those vetarans who lived to the age of 100. The old URL should redirect to this new article. 80.213.84.187 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment won't be possible since there were a ton of veterans (likely over 10,000) who lived passed the age of 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep For now. There is already discussion on the articles talk page as to the future of the article. Possibilities inlcude changing the nature of the article (which would include renaming), or redirecting. No need, or point, in deleting. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: One would have thought that the nom might have noticed that the discussion as to the fate of the article on its talk page is less than 24 hours old right now, working through whether to merge to another article, redirect or some other fate. AfD is, at this stage, redundant.  Ravenswing  08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page about what to do with the articel.Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pending decision by the interested parties on the article talk page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and close, based on discussion on article's talkpage.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is deserving of a Redirect to Last veterans. When the times come, pages like these ought to redirect to a page that lists the veterans who have lived the longest after wars / battles / events / etc. --Let Us Update Dusty Articles 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," to list perhaps the last 10 veterans, the last veterans from each nation (such as merging that particular article), etc. —  AMK152  (t • c) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep until Jozef Kowalski dies than delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Beyond any other consideration, a redirect (such as is the trend on the talk page discussion) preserves the edit history of this valuable resource. Deletion does not.  Ravenswing  22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe we should re-name this page but I think that redirecting it before Kowalski dies is not the right thing to do (after all he has been on this page for around 5 Years or so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: until Mr. Kowalski passes on; it's a slap in the face to delete it before this. If he was good enough to be listed on the page for the past five years, he's good enough to keep the page alive until his passing.  Barring that, it should be kept at least until the talk page process has run its course, and a determination has been made as to its future.Tom Barrister 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: not only that but when World War I-era Veterans Die their entry becomes listed on the deaths page, what will happen with Kowalski's entry if we delete this page (since he should become a part of the deaths page when he does die, especially since he is the last World War I-era Veteran). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cite Kowalski's enlistment date or I'm removing it. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as I suggested on the talk page. The first paragraph of the page has already been merged into that article, if the page is deleted then it would be difficult to properly attribute that content in accordance with our licence. Though I don't mind Kowalski being on the list alongside veterans it does seem pointless to have a list of veterans of WWI with no WWI veterans on it and he is already on List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Hut 8.5 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that if we have a Re-Direct then we should keep Kowalski's entry on the Main Page if only for the fact that it is preserved there in it's regular block format alowing for an easy move over to the List of World War I Veterans who died in 2009-12 page when he does die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since we have had World War I era veterans on this list, what about redirecting this to a list containing the oldest living veterans? —  AMK152  (t • c) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Might be hard to put together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As someone who has followed this page for maybe 5 or 6 years or more and has occasionally contributed bits of information ... I support keeping it in place until Jozef Kowalski passes. There has always been a format: verified, era and unverified. As far as I remember Jozef Kowalski has been on the list from a long time back when there were 50 or more people listed. I may be wrong however. Being consistent with the entire history of this page which has be a compilation of efforts of many people over the years ... I tend to think that leaving it as is until it concludes naturally makes the most sense.
 * Comment Follow-up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=109555236 shows Jozef Kowalski as listed from at least 5 years ago. I see someone has adjusted the page to a new format that lists Jozef Kowalski as the only remaining participant in a conflict relevant to WW 1. This seems ok to me.125.139.20.45 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Mic (South Korea)
 * Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country per above. Yeah Kowalski's been on the list a long time, but he still doesn't entirely seem to fit and he is in the article on the Polish–Soviet War and on Last European veterans by war. So if it's just him it seems like the purpose of this list, as a list, is over. Although I should add it was a fascinating list while it lasted and fond farewell to it as well as its people.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Redirect, but to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–12. On reflection I think that's closer to what this list actually was than the "by nation" list. If need be that list can be renamed to "died in 2009-13 or 14 or 22 or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why was he on here in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I say we delete it when Kowalski dies, but not until then. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," per AFK152. Just one word extra is required. It would still be valuable as a list of the final group of survivors in the last decade. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the corresponding Dutch article renamed to nl:Laatste veteranen van de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Last veterans of the First World War). Maybe this is a good name for this article. That article also lists the last surviving veterans per armed forces unit and theatre. Maybe this is an idea for this article as well. Just list the last group which lived in the past few years. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: information is adequately covered in "List of last surviving World War I veterans by country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hominka (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country If someone comes looking for a list of surviving veterans (not knowing there are none), ending up at the other pages (which explicitly states that fact) seems a logical location. Redirects are cheap - there is no reason to not have this as a redirect, as it seems a valid search term.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country - Reasoning and logic for this action are sound. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alter. Change the name to "Last veterans of the First World War", and use the French version of the article as a model. Aridd (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually like the Italian model better it is more extensive plus they preserve Kowalski's entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alter Do not delete, then I cannot access previous versions of the page, say if I wanted to see what veterans were still living in 2005. Simply call it "Last surviving veterans of WWI" 1779Days (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect keeping history, probably to the list of last surviving veterans. People put a lot of work into maintaining this page over the last few years, and deletion would make that work inaccessible to others. There's no point in deleting good faith contributions that can be preserved by a redirect. — PyTom (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on keeping the history, good idea.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have already given my suggestion above (redirection) - but I want to reinforce what people have been saying recently. This should be kept as a redirect because it is unusual in that it is not being deleted for any of the usual reasons (lack of notability etc) - it is (sadly) a list which under its current title no longer is valid. As such, I feel that a redirect is essential, to preserve the article history. As I say, it's deletion would not be for one of the usual reasons, and as long as a suitable target is selected, there is no reason not to keep the history.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have known WWI vets all my life and have missed them greatly as they became so few. I appreciated this entry and passed on the information posted here to my fellow vets of later times.  It was a nicely done effort that we appreciated.  User:lestertabey\
 * Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as noted above. -- 202.124.72.98 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2012 (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.