Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of World War I


 * 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 would think that this many "keep" votes in a short amount of time warrants a WP:SNOW closure. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Surviving veterans of World War I

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

With all due respect to the veterans, I think this list has many problems. Original research for instance, because this list defines its own subject, instead of using primary, secondary or tertiary sources. It also offers totals in the end which, imho, cannot be sourced. All this requires a constant monitoring, and leads me to think this is better served by a category. Er rab ee 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why do you say it can't be sourced? It's got nearly fifty sources.  Half the articles on Wikipedia need constant monitoring - every article about living people for a start - and that's hardly an argument for deletion, in fact it's Wikipedia's main strength.  I also don't see why it's 'original research' because the list 'defines its own subject'.  The article has been constantly updated, hundreds of times in fact, by a wide range of editors and the deaths of the few remaining WW1 veterans are widely reported. Another point is that this article was previously put up for AfD in November 2005, the result being a clear 'keep'. .  It's usual to mention a previous AfD when nominating an article.  I'm assuming some research was done of course.  I also notice that user Errabee previously rated this article as a 'B' in the biography project [].  Presumably his views have changed a lot since then for some reason. Nick mallory 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had indeed noticed the previous AfD which was, as you noted, more than 1.5 years ago and the concerns cited there were not relevant to this AfD. I rated this a 'B' for Biography because it was originally listed as an 'A', which I didn't agree with. Also, the sources are all about the individual veterans, not about conclusions drawn from them, such as that there are 34 surviving veterans. An additional reason for deletion is that there is no such corresponding lists as Surviving veterans of World War II or Surviving veterans of the Vietnam War or Surviving veterans of the Gulf War, to mention just a few major wars from the recent past. The fact that WWI is singled out is also one of my concerns. Er rab ee 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought previous AfDs were cited even if they were all of eighteen months ago and I still don't understand why an article which you yourself rated yourself as a 'B' suddenly becomes one which should be deleted. I don't understand why the lack of an article about other wars means this one is inadmissable.  There isn't an article on every first class cricketer, should we then delete Ian Botham and Jack Hobbs? Nick mallory 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I'm not a regular on XfD. So I'm sorry if I didn't follow the usual rule to cite the previous nomination; it wasn't mentioned in the procedure on how to nominate an article for AfD, and I thought it would serve no purpose because I have totally different concerns than the previous nominator. Sorry again.
 * As for having rated the article, that does not mean anything. I just think the material of this list is of B-class quality; it says absolutely nothing of my opinion whether an article merits inclusion or not. To illustrate (and exaggerate): I could write an A-class article (if my writing skills were sufficient) about all the pets I've had in my childhood, but I doubt anyone would consider them worthy of an article. I hope you understand. Er rab ee 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is singled out because sources find survivors of a war 90+ years ago more impressive than a war only 50 or even 15 years ago.  T Rex  | talk  11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: What makes it notable is that there are so few survivors left. WWII survivors number in the hundreds, I'm sure. Vietnam and Gulf War survivors number in the tens of thousands. -- VegitaU 11:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Article was cited by a news source. Article has many sources. Article was nominated for deletion before and was kept. -- VegitaU 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep can be maintained and is well sourced.  T Rex  | talk  11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The reasons have already been covered by others, but I'd like to add that the reason there's no "Living WWII" or "Living Vietnam War" Veteran Lists is because the wars weren't that long ago. Many countries (including Australia) regard their national experiences in WWI as laying the foundation for their country as it is today, so the remaining WWI Vets are minor national heroes in their own right, never mind being incredibly long-lived. The article is useful and relevant, and I see no reason why it shouldn't stay. --Commander Zulu 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is very well sourced, and the topic of surviving veterans has been covered extensively in sources. A category would not be as useful because there is additional information about the topic which would not be included in a category. Hut 8.5 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We've been through this before; the reasons for keeping this article haven't changed. If anything, they have become even stronger as the list dwindles. And WELL SAID, Commander Zulu! Frankwomble 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A very well sourced article on an subject that is getting a lot of press attention. There was an article on a veteran just today on the BBC website. Kernel Saunters 12:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The nominator's humble opinion notwithstanding, this is an overwhelmingly sourced article, and I'm at a loss to determine the reasoning in declaring the contrary. It certainly does not "define its own subject," as the article blatantly cites the various (and contradictory) national regulations defining "World War I-era veteran."  The nom further makes the common error of presuming that compiling info from multiple sources constitutes original research, when in fact drawing a synthesis from such facts is the violation.  As far as the lack of similar lists go, quite aside from the absurdity of maintaining the same (are there as few as a million surviving WWII vets worldwide?), that's rather like saying an article on a particular movie isn't allowable just because there isn't one yet on a similar work.  The nom is correct, though, in that the article requires constant monitoring.  With over twelve hundred edits this year alone, it's obvious that many editors are quite happy to provide just that.    RGTraynor  13:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says, and I quote: "Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations up to and including the date of the Armistice. Other WWI-era veterans are listed separately. This policy may vary from the policy in actual use in some countries." Especially this last sentence means that this list defines its own subject. It means that people in this list are perhaps not regarded as veterans in their own country, or that people are excluded that are regarded as veterans in their own country. That is what makes this list original research. The unsourced statements I refer to are not the info about the individual veterans (which are indeed very well sourced), but the totals in each section header and in the paragraph in the end. Counting all these veterans is a synthesis, and I doubt very much that these countings can be adequately sourced. Er rab ee 16:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (coughs) Counting the number of sourced entries is a "synthesis?"  There's very little in the way of response I could possibly make to that startling assertion which would fit under civility guidelines; the overwhelming reaction to your nomination must suffice for reply.    RGTraynor  22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's incomprehensible to me why this article was nominated for deletion.  I spent three years (1987-1991) conducting oral histories with American and British World War I veterans.  Their stories were being lost then, and they're being lost again today. Spacini 14:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: why was this nominated in the first place? Czolgolz 14:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews: it's not encyclopedic - in about 10 years this article will have to be deleted anyway, so it's more a Wikinews article but then it should have a definite date: "Surviving veterans of World War I as on 2007-07-30", tho checking that all those people are alive on that day may be difficult. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t15:29z
 * Keep - well sourced and it is kept up to date by a wide number of editors. Catwhoorg 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable, very useful, and well sourced.  James   Luftan  contribs 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and eventually replace with "Last Veterans of World War I to die" listing the last 100 veterans to die and maybe the last 1 to die from each country if he is not in the last-100 list. If there are not a similar lists for the American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War and other major wars in history where long-term survival information is reliable and long-lived surviving veterans were celebrated there should be.  When the WW2 survivor list gets below 100 it should have its own list as well.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Greatly superior to a category. Hawkestone 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, for reasons already listed above and I second excellent suggestion by davidwr. Snappy56 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Srong Keep, again for all the reason set out in this and previous AfDs. I can't think of an article which is more thoroughly researched and kept up to date. It is an excellent article. Mithrandir1967 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's only as difficult to maintain as any other list of living people (such as Oldest_people, and it's well-sourced.  Useight 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Buckshot06 21:02, 30 July 2007 (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.