Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 2000


 * 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 all. Michig (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

List of veterans of World War I who died in 2000

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following along with Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999, I'm listing the remaining by year pages (the last surviving one is different to me). These feel closer to a directory and against WP:CSC as this gets closer and closer to indiscriminate if we go further back in time. 1999 had over 750 names on it, 2000 has over 500, etc., etc., all of which on based on verifiable existence alone, not based on encyclopedic and topical relevance. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: These pages are excellent resources for people interested in this sort of thing, and they hurt nothing.Czolgolz (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:USEFUL. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I fail to see how these lists describe a notable subject, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. All WWI veterans have died or will die. ie 1. in what way is 'WWI veterans who died" a notable subject? 2. Are there reliable sources on this as a subject? 3. Does this help WP by being a useful internal organisation of information on the subject, assuming it is notable? I think the answers to these questions are 1. it isn't, 2. no, and 3. no. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would favor keeping these articles, but I do have one comment. Several last veterans, including those who died in 2007-2008, have their own articles. If you look at those lists, you can see that most of them do in fact. I would ask everyone saying delete to consider keeping the later years, or perhaps they could be merged with the last veterans (List of last surviving World War I veterans) list. —  AMK152  (t • c) 21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't list List of last surviving World War I veterans because as I noted, it is different than these pages. Are you requesting a merger of 2008 to that one? Or all of them so that the various countries have their details filled out (we can debate the number per country and other details at that talk page)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the last X# veterans. —  AMK152  (t • c) 05:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete long lists of non-notable individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments at Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999. I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for standalone lists on this topic (except for the last surviving ones, which might be debatable - but that has not been nominated here). Canadian   Paul  07:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I said at the other AfD, "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." GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 13 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.