Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (4th 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 Speedy keep. I have blocked the nominator as a sockpuppet of banned User:SuperblySpiffingPerson. Hut 8.5 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete and SALT Nominated for reason that it has not been appropriately reformed (even in the slightest way) or redirected through any consensus from involved editors in talkpage discussion as desired from a result of the prior deletion nomination, and it remains a list of other than what it is titled to be: to whit, Poland is nowhere accepted as a combatant party in any stage World War I, even by WP:FRINGE academics. Allsold (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ten days is not a long period of time for the article to be "reformed" as described above. This article just came through AfD 10 days ago with a keep result; I don't see anything to change that result at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you see as having been achieved in that 10 days of abdicating to allow the involved editors to reform it? Do you want another 10 days of this misnomer? And another?Allsold (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, restructure and rename. Alas, an article with this exact name is no longer appropriate.  However, the encyclopedic information contained in this article and its history in recent years certainly deserves a place here, in coverage of the longest surviving veterans (now departed) of the "Great War".  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per both users above. A nomination so soon after another which resulted in a clear keep seems rather petty. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: and verging on a bad faith nomination. AfD is not for people who dislike the earlier results and want to keep snapping at the apple, nor for venting - given the nom's vandalization of the article - an apparent animus towards Poland.  Not the first time in the nom's short Wikipedia career where he's attempted to inject his own POV into the proceedings. That being said, if nom is exercised that no disposition of the article has yet been decided and implemented, he has made no attempt on the article's talk page either to make a proposal for the same, support any of the proposals mooted or chivvy the participants towards a decision.  In any event, nearly a century after the war, I am unimpressed by the assertion that ten days' worth of no final decision is particularly ghastly or objectionable; this is not a race, and prizes are not being awarded for speed.  Ravenswing  05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have witnessed that any and all attempts to move the article to relevancy, particularly since the abdication decision at last nom, are consistently nullified by the current crop of owning editors. Case in point is the continuing references to the irrelevant figure Kowalski. Please offer us any reliably sourced reference, anywhere, to Poland being accorded the status of a combatant party in the war? Until then it has proven the incapability and unwillingness of the involved group of editors to have brought the subject matter to relevance and by now to have wrapped it up. Oh, and there is a race and it's a race to keep content on this database relevant; one which the rest of us intend to win. If we took as long to acknowledge the death of Whitney Houston as its taking to acknowledge that there hasn't been relevance to the concept of this "list", which would have been at least since the happening of the event that justified the second nomination early last year, we'd be laughed at all the way to work and back. Take this decision out of the hands of the prevailing editorship. They're stalling and doing nothing for which the ridicule they earn turns out to be shared by us all.114.73.109.103 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Bad faith nom.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:09, 26 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.