Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This feels closer to a directory and against WP:CSC as this gets closer and closer to indiscriminate if we go further back in time. This list already has over 750 names on it all of which on verifiable existence alone to me, not based on encyclopedic and topical relevance. While this isn't normally a criteria here, how far back should these lists of veterans go? In theory, the first list would be "List of veterans of World War I who died in 1914" which I think everyone agrees would be absurd. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For complete disclosure, this went Keep back in an AfD in 2007 Articles for deletion/Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999 under a slightly different name. Most of the keep votes had no policy behind them, and even the closer questioned his decision in the close. The talk page is very revealing. Even RYoung, the now banned super old people tracker questioned the value of this list. Reading the list shows this is obviously a very incomplete list and if it were not for a cross referancing project to ID UK vets a good part of it would not be here. It fails WP:NLIST and is rather an indiscriminate and not complete list of names of people that died in their 90's and just past 100, which is not that remarkable. Anyone with an article should be in Deaths in 1999 anyway. The rest are just names and dates with no other info. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Having died in 1999 is not a defining characteristic - we wouldn't have an article on veterans of conflict x which had red hair would we? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable intersection of criteria. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete  as a non-defining list. If the list had included only notable individuals within Wikipedia (ie with an article) then it might have had some usefulness as an alternative to a category - but we still get round to that non-defining aspect. Old people dying is not distinctive enough. And I would recommend that the other similar lists also be considered. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per what has been well-said above. I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian   Paul  17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic or useful conceptualization of an encyclopedic matter. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (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.