Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War


 * 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 no consensus. I don't think I've run into a "no consensus" more no-consensusy than this one. Those who wish to keep this should watch-list it, and make sure it is maintained regularly. Otherwise it will be detrimental to the encyclopedia. (last two sentences are my own opinion, and are not counted in my closing judgement) 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War should be deleted because it is fatally data deficient, unable to be properly maintained, and is a longevity fanfluff article, not of true encyclopedic value. As this news article states,, as of July 2016 there were about 200 living La Quinta del Biberon soldiers. This Wikipedia article incorrectly claims Manuel Gallego-Nicasio is the last of this group of 30,000 soldiers. La Quinta del Biberon soldiers are just one small component of the total number of those who served in the Spanish Civil War, so it stands to reason there are at least many hundreds if not thousands of veterans of this conflict still living. Yet, there are only eight people on this two part list, five of whom I could not locate a recent reliable source (from within one year) stating they were still alive. Faustino Olivera's most recent reliable source demonstrating he was alive is over 10 years old, while José Álvarez Limia's source is approaching being 5 years old. Veteran Karel Dufek died in 2009 yet was only removed in June 2017 and veteran Sandalio González Pérez was removed in June 2018 after dying over a year before. It is against WP:BLP to claim dead people are still alive, which is a systematic problem in this article. This article cannot maintain the handful of entries it has and lacks the hundreds or thousands of other living Spanish Civil War veterans that exist, which gives readers the wildly false impression that there are almost none of these veterans left. The handful of entries on this list represent a pure fanfluff interpretation of reality - that there only 8 veterans left, that there are categories of lasts which don't really exist, that dead vets are really still alive, etc. There is also nothing special about this war as to require an individual article listing all the living veterans of the war - we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge. Only war or longevity fans want this, it is not encyclopedic. All of these are the same or similar reasons that a corresponding suite of articles on deaths of Spanish Civil War veterans by year was deleted long ago. It is time this article is also deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep "Fanfluff" as a reason to delete on an article about war veterans and calling this war "not special" pretty much throws this nom into a prejudicial WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, notwithstanding the textwall you're trying to throw at us. Restate your nomination in one paragraph of less than three sentences. Also, don't get mad at volunteer editors for forgetting to remove those who have died from this article; be glad this article is updated at all. Plenty of sources for those in the article that I see, too. Finally, " we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge"? Three clicks is all it takes to get to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I will not restate my well reasoned argument and no, I am not prejudiced against this article or angry at editors, so don't try to avoid my points with red herrings. I was stating reality. There are not plenty of recent reliable sources (the consensus on longevity pages is each individual needs a reliable source up to one year old stating they were alive to be included). An article for notable veterans of a war and an article for all veterans of a war that includes almost none of those veterans are two very different things. Your rudeness and false accusations are of no substance to this AFD. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, your argument was not well-reasoned. Secondly, you are not supposed to be posting an argument but merely cite specific reasons why the article does not meet WP criteria, which you can accomplish in 10 words. People who post walls of text for AfD are driven by their dislike of the subject. This article is clearly not fancruft, I don't know what "fatally data deficient" even means (after years of participating in AfD) and "unable to be properly maintained" is just more of your opinion. I have never contributed to this article (or any article on the Spanish Civil War as far as I know) so I am telling you my neutral opinion. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article violates WP:BLP, too soon, WP:Memorial, and lacks the hundreds and possibly thousands of living Spanish Civil War veterans, which makes the article encyclopedically worthless. There are very few reliable sources for individual veterans because evidently this subject doesn't interest people in the real world. It is also a fact that editors have proven incapable for over a decade of properly maintaining the information in this article. As explained by Derby below, this article was originally created as a hobby article by war oriented longevity fans when their last playground closed down. Concise enough? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was definitely started too soon and could certainly be considered to have been fanfluff as it was started at about the time the WWI surviving veterans page came to an end. That it appears to have never listed more than 10% of the actual surviving veterans makes it of negligible encyclopedic value. The topic itself is certainly of far less notability than the corresponding WWI article. The fact that there are so few updates also reflects an apparent lack of interest in the topic. It could be speculated that as more veterans reach 100 there might be an increase in reports of veterans and possibly of interest generally but it is debatable whether that justifies retaining the article at this time and in its current state. It is however more justified as an article than List of notable surviving veterans of World War II which not only has the same flaws but is a perfect example of listcruft. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 03:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nate (Mrschimpf). Perplexed that anyone would refer to this as "Fanfluff" — who are the "fans" of this war? Is there a Spanish Civil Warcon? Article should be improved or updated but I don't see a good reason cited why it shouldn't exist. This war was 80 years ago so it's precisely the time period when this article would be relevant. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Redirect to a Spanish Civil War section on survivors. If that section doesn't exist, then create it (merge). Redditaddict69 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article has been maintained for over a decade. It's the same as the surviving vets of World War I page, when that was still relevant. Czolgolz (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article lacks the hundreds and possibly thousands of living Spanish Civil War veterans who exist and has always done so, as Derby explained above, which makes it encyclopedically worthless. Whether anyone likes it or not, it has also been in a derelict state for years (e.g. Faustino Olivera should have been removed over nine years ago as explained above). Newshunter12 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a very eclectic policy on listing obscure people as alive or dead. Over at the List of surviving silent film actors, the insist that we CANNOT remove people unless we find a source that they are actually dead. So who's to say Faustino Olivera isn't still alive and living in obscurity? Czolgolz (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The long held consensuses on longevity pages, of which this is one (see template at bottom of article) is that individuals need a reliable source up to one year old stating they were alive or they are removed. You admit that these people are obscure (aka not notable), which is true. This topic is not notable, it was longevity fan generated when their last playground closed down (list of surviving WW1 veterans). Thank you for agreeing with me. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: "There is also nothing special about this war as to require an individual article listing all the living veterans of the war - we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge. Only war or longevity fans want this, it is not encyclopedic." This statement right here brings me close to thinking that this is a bad faith nomination; nasty nasty war stuff, who wants that, right? (Gee, do I get to eliminate any article from Wikipedia in a field that bores me?)  Never mind that it shows a blatant lack of WP:BEFORE -- we don't have such an article for any other war? Try the template on the bottom of the freaking article!  Nor, demographically, would there be "hundreds and possibly thousands" of such veterans, when you have to be a centenarian or near to to make the list.  If there are sourcing issues, that's a content dispute, but not one for AfD.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. *sigh* Another response at this AFD filled with personnel attacks and false accusations instead of whether this article merits existing under Wikipedia policy and any encyclopedic standards. This reliable source shows that in one small group of those who served in this war, there were hundreds of veterans living as of July 2016, which is a fact I put in my AFD explanation above, so I clearly didn't just make it up. This article contains only eight people, most of whom don't meet policy requirements to stay on the list. This is clearly a minute number of the total number of living Spanish Civil War veterans and as Derby explained above, it has always been so with this article. The required number of reliable sources for individual veterans needed to make this article encyclopedically worthwhile simply do not exist. The reason for this is the topic of this article is not notable, it was fan generated as explained in above comments. No other current article tries to list all surviving veterans of a war in an individual article, so looking at the bottom template does not prove your point, but mine. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A whole load of WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG there, sport. Just read up.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am clearly not in violation of either of those policies, so the false accusations continue, unfortunately. Please try sticking to debating the article and not claiming you know the AFD nominator, someone you don't even know, is acting in bad faith or violating random policies. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment For all those claiming I am biased against this article by stating the fact that it is fanfluff and fan generated by longevity fans, I ask you to look at the various forum discussions on the 110 club website (in case anyone doesn't know, it's a notorious longevity fan website where many people longevity topic banned or perma-banned from Wikipedia go) about surviving Spanish Civil War veterans and when will the last one die. The obscure topic of this article most certainly does have an active and longstanding fan base, as I correctly pointed out. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now who's resorting to personal attacks? Just because you're not interested in something, doesn't mean its fan fluff or non encyclopedic. I can't count the number of articles (and they were not longevity-themed) with many contributors that existed for years until someone randomly stumbled upon it and said 'It pleaseth me not. Remove it from my sight post haste.' Czolgolz (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I attacked no editors personally. I am aware that you are a longtime editor of this article and at no time have I accused you of anything. Contributors to this AFD seem to think I made up that there is an active fanbase for this articles content, and I merely pointed them to where they can openly see this fanbase in action. Presenting factual information is not an attack. This article as a legitimate, well-sourced part of this encyclopedia is indefensible and I do wonder if the focus on me, the nominator, is because editors can't actually defend the article on its merits. I don't know what's in any of your hearts so I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I do wonder. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't attack me, you attacked people at the 110+ club. Just clarifying.Czolgolz (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What I said about the 110 club is not an attack, it's the truth. Also, many people there openly trash the longevity project on Wikipedia and are known to have been kicked off Wikipedia, such as the GRG's Robert Young. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The comments mainly here are about how you think those interested in wars and their veterans maintain 'fanfluff', not about people on a message board interested in long-lived persons. Most of those here on AfD don't even know what the GRG is, much less the conflicts in that entire topic area over the years (or like most of the ANI regular topic rolls, stay the heck away from it and don't want to raise any hackles towards them; I have no interest in the topic and see no point of wandering in, no offense).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per Nate. This is just another longevity related article that never should have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Drunk in Paris (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why not have a list of the tallest veterans or the most obese ones? In addition, this list is bound to disappear, sooner or later no veterans will be left. None of the entries on this list is notable in his own right, so the information in this list really is absolutely uninteresting. Note that the list of WWII veterans referred to above is limited to notable veterans. Finally and most importantly, there are no sources that show that "surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War" is actually a notable topic. Hence: fails WP:LISTN. As for the !vote above, as far as I can see, this is yet another longevity-related article that should never have been created to start with... --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because there are still millions of WWII vets left alive. When the Great War veterans' ranks grew low, there were plenty of articles about the remaining survivors.Czolgolz (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I fail to see purpose to the list. Moreover, it's bound to remain incomplete and inaccurate: There are many people who took part in that conflict and who are alive today but will never be included because of lack of sources. Plus, there's always the issue of how "took part" is defined, i.e. who qualifies as a veteran? Only soldiers? The nurses? The civil service administrators of either side? A veritable Pandora's box. -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or re-purpose and re-name to List of last Spanish Civil War veterans by country. The current construction of the page is original research, and thus the page is a violation of what Wikipedia is not.  I note that this topic is under Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: although it may seem like trivia, I don't think that the lack of maintenance qualifies this article for deletion. I also don't understand how the list construction qualifies as OR. The sources clearly state which side they were on and it seems like an obvious distinction to make. This subject may be covered poorly in English-language news, but I suspect there are more sources available in Spanish, so I don't see that as a reason to delete. Catrìona (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion is still ongoing, and a recent flood of votes might indicate that more people have noticed and/or are interested in the subject material and can constructively give opinions on the suitability of this article.
 * Delete I'm persuaded by the WP:BLP argument here. An out of date, inaccurate or incomplete list about software, for example, is one thing. When it's a list about people it's another. Would be tempted to say keep with something like a Template:Dynamic list that expressed the issue with more humane language, but I'm not sure there's a template that exists to caveat this list appropriately. - Scarpy (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Small article that should be merged to Spanish Civil War. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all veterans survived. Some lived to very old age. So what?  If a veteran of any war passes WP:SIGCOV he can have a page.  It is conceivable that the "oldest surviving" or "oldest surviving" member of a specific unit, say, the Lincoln Battalion, might be written up sufficiently for that alone to have a page.  But this list is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the persuasive reasoning of E.M.Gregory. The nom kind of looks like bad faith; part WP:JDLI and the choice of any word combination with "fluff" will look disrespectful to veterans. But, putting the rationale for the nom aside, the list just doesn't appear notable, useful, or accurate. Ifnord (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per DerbyCountyinNZ; an indiscriminate fusion of two traits that exists for the amusement of off-wiki fanboys. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per NukeThePukes. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * His entire argument consisted of trashing the nominator (me) and making provable false claims, such as that their are not at least hundreds and possibly thousands of vets left, when there are, and that we currently have other individual articles (that means solely dedicated to one war) dedicated to all surviving war vets of other conflicts, which we don't. Whatever you are endorsing is of no substance to this discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mrschimpf and Czolgolz also make good points. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. There's been a lot of name calling here. Czolgolz (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And Newshunter12's sure done his fair share of it.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to arguments made that we have many similar articles: No, we don't. what we have are "Lists of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars".  We could indeed have an article on the "Last surviving" member of particular brigades, or "last surviving" veteran in specific countries.  Enormous attention has been lavished on this important war, and on the international volunteers who flocked to Spain to fight in it.  But this article is is about all veterans still alive.  It is not a COMMON sort of article, nor a sensible articles.  All veterans survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN as the topic of "surviving" veterans has not been discussed sufficiently in reliable sources. The list would make more sense if the individuals were blue-linked, but this is not the case. Also, per the elements of a "death-watch" undertones. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Nate, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Into the Rift (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Several experienced editors have made cogent arguments for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nate's whole argument consisted of trashing and making demands of the nominator (me), and making provably false claims such as that their is adequate sourcing in the article when most sources are older then the maximum on longevity pages age of one year and new sources can't be found for five of eight individuals. He also made the false claim that we have similar articles to this, for all surviving veterans of a war, which we don't. Whatever you are endorsing is of no substance to this AfD. By the way, despite the false accusations on this thread, I don't have a personal problem with this article and the article doesn't equal the veterans in it either. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This should probably be closed as No Consensus for now. There are great opinions on each side and a 4th relist is unreasonable. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  03:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The keep! voter arguments were overwhelmingly attacks on the nominator and provably false claims, while all eight delete voters gave substantive arguments for deletion. How does that warrant a no consensus judgement? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So the votes that side with you should count and the opposition votes shouldn't? Czolgolz (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I merely made a fact based observation and asked a question. This is not a vote anyway - on Wikipedia, it's the quality of arguments that matter. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Obviously I concur with Newshunter12; the keep votes containing clear falsehoods, as documented above, deserve no weight. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised almost nobody has agreed with my vote yet to redirect/merge to the actual war and make a section there. While the keep votes aren't entirely accurate, they still exist. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  20:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.