Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterans of the First World War 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 that my instinct says delete, but the consensus here says keep. Ezeu 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. Not even appropriate as a category, since most of these people are not notable enough to have their own articles. Corvus cornix 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete DCboy 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain why. Corvus cornix 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- While the people in the article may not be notble enough to have thier own articles this article is well referenced and the list is very informative and is a great addition to the encyclopedia.--Joebengo 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to tell from the references which reference goes with which entry, and therefore the article is extremely poorly referenced. If you think the references are great, please link them to an entry.  Corvus cornix 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The entries for the UK and Ireland are all verifiable. They are the result of a year-long project that cross-references the birth and death records of men of military age during WWI who survived into the period researched with the UK National Archives's military service records and the work of eminent historians such as Richard Van Emden and Max Arthur on WWI veterans.  I am happy to go into more detail on the research undertaken if it will help.

However, much of the source material is not readily available online and referencing over 160 individual records will be a painstaking process, and not one I am prepared to undertake whilst the threat of deletion hangs over the page. Should the consensus be to keep the page, then I will be happy to put the appropriate references in place. I'd appreciate your suggestions on an efficient way of doing this.

This page should be seen in its true context, as a document that is part of and supports a much bigger body of work on the subject of the 'Surviving Veterans of World War I.'

86.141.57.30 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Bruce


 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can any of the supporters of this article comment as to whether they would support articles on Veterans of the First World War who died in 1998, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1997, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1996, etc.? Also, if this article is kept, the title should be changed to Veterans of World War I who died in 1999 since World War I is how that war is generally known on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as article does not explain how surviving that particular war is notable. Also, is incomplete in terms of ALL veterans (not just those from selected countries). Eddie.willers 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as suffering from an arbitrary standard for inclusion. There is nothing notable about the intersection of "World War I vet" and "died in 1999." Otto4711 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepA record of those WW1 Veterans who died in 1999 should be no problem to stay. It is just as important to remember those who died 8 years ago as it is this year. Cannot really see a valid reason for deletion,some people are just being mean spirited. So stop it already. What is it to you anyway? No problem here. [User Redpepper1952]19:30 8 April,2007
 * Wikipedia is not a memorial. Keeping a list of the dead because "it's important to remember them" flies in the face of that policy. Otto4711 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Important as a refererence to the article on surviving veterans Frankwomble 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is an excellent reference and should remain, as nothing else like it currently exists. --Brianmccollum 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a fine, if incomplete, resource Czolgolz 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The page should be kept in context of the Suriving Veterans of WW1 page as reference material, it's clear from that discussion page that there is still questionability of when certain veterans died which were at least referenced as living, Novemeber 11th 1998 onwards (surviving WW1 veterans has been a regular 'cause celebre' for UK newspapers since this 80th anniversary). Saying that I tend to agree that many are not notable per se; but in my view the article isn't trying to commemorate the individuals on the list, it's just a concise list and it's the collective which is notable. RichyBoy 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. End of. (unsigned comment)
 * DELETE. Few of these are notable, and surely just numbers would do somewhere else. Besides, the information is not complete either & doesn't serve much purpose. There's enough pages devoted to the World War and this one can go. 86.132.145.164 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Runmaster67
 * Strong keep. As per users "Redpepper1952", "Frankwomble", "Brianmccollum", "Czolgolz" and "RichyBoy". Extremely sexy 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above. Mithrandir1967 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page serves as a unique reference. The First World War was the single most important event in 20th century history and its ramifications have made the world it is today. It was fought by manual workers and farmhands, clerks and students who answered their countries' call, fought, and if they survived went home again, back to their ordinary lives. Most of those listed here are not notable but their contribution to they way we all are now is greater than most of the here today, gone tomorrow pop-trash and Z-listers whose sixth-form biographies clutter this encyclopedia - Bruce
 * One could contest the notion that WW1 was the single most important event of the 20th Century, but whether it is or not is irrelevant to this discussion. That "pop-trash" or "Z-listers" have articles is also irrelevant, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To those who say that "wikipedia is not a memorial".. why don't you read the rest of the wording? This site allows mention of those who are "notable". And WW1 Veterans are most certianly that! In fact it could be said that the whole site of "surviving veterans of WW1" is really a memorial in itself. So the "not a memorial" thing is not a fixed rule. {User Redpepper1952} 22:45 April 9, 2007
 * Keep per above. --Hemlock Martinis 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The war was notable, the people who fought in it, although noble, are not necessarily notable. --FateClub 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Brianmccollum. I think this is a rare instance where Wikipedia has a unique resource that doesn't violate the "No original research" clause. Canadian Paul 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then be sure to delete every single entry in the page which is not referenced. Corvus cornix 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a memorial Charles (Kznf) 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and to honour them. Fishhead64 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Most of the individuals are not notable.  Are we going to do this for every year, like say 1917 or 1921?  This is a perfect example of WP:NOT. What makes this article encyclopedic? Vegaswikian 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am Polish helping to improve Last surviving and 2007 veteran deaths, however I think 1999 deaths makes no help to the previous two pages, what's more it's very very incomplete and totally unencyklopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.118.23 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep As per users "Redpepper1952", "Frankwomble", "Brianmccollum", "Czolgolz" and "RichyBoy" SRwiki 09:24, 13 April 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.