Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterans of the First World War who died in 2004


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - default to keep  Jtkiefer T  20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Veterans of the First World War who died in 2004
Also, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2000, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2001, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2002, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003 and Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005

Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as companion to Surviving veterans of the First World War. Laszlo Panaflex 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this afd. First off, I agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial, however I don't really see this list as being a memorial.  Counter to this is the reason to keep because it is a companion to another page, which I don't feel is an adequate reason enough to keep.  I would like to see this page kept only because the current system prevents me from listing all subjects that fulfill two or more categories, for example Category:2004 deaths and Category:World War I people.  Hence, a system able to do this sort of database query would really superseed the need for these sort of pages. However I don't feel I should vote just yet. -- malo (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This just feels too much like a memorial page, and the grand majority of these people do not merit encyclopedia articles (so it's not a useful resource for browsing Wikipedia). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - sets a precedent for Veterans of the First World War who died in 1950, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1973, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1989, etc. FCYTravis 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. as per Laszlo.  Or at least merge these articles into Surviving veterans .... Marcus22 12:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to "Surviving veterans". That they are the final survivors grants an amount of notability, and is as such much different to the mentioned precedent. However, 2005, 2004 etc. deaths don't benefit from their own articles - although recent deaths and survivors should be kept separate out of respect for the latter. --Kizor 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete them all - I see no purpose for it. Renata3 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Neutral. Renata3 18:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As has been pointed out elsewhere, all surviving veterans who fought in France have received the Légion d'Honneur. I don't know enough about the Légion to insist it confers notability, but it must need consideration.  Marcus22 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. All the surviving ones since when? Certainly not every single veteran who ever fought? -R. fiend 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently France honoured all surviving veterans who fought on French soil in 1998. (Or, possibly, 1999). Marcus22 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. Any idea how many there were at the time? -R. fiend 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment To qualify, the person had to serve in France during WWI and still be alive in Nov 1998 or later. The number is likely 2,000.  I feel this is an 'example' of commemoration, but should not be the criteria for inclusion.  I prefer another choice: perhaps those whose deaths made the AP wire? Or maybe those still alive in 2000 or later, already a concession by dropping the 1998 and 1999 honorees (if the annual death rate is about 50%, we can estimate 1,000 left in 1999, 500 in 2000, 250 in 2001, 125 in 2002, 63 in 2003, 31 in 2004, 15 in 2005...)Ryoung122 21:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The ones here should be the majority. --Kizor 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Professionals at the Canadian War Museum have commented to me on how valuable a resource these lists are. - SimonP 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll give some more information per request. My father is a historian there, and they are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are, and about the rate that they are disappearing. I find this entire preoccupation somewhat grisly, but there is a widespread fandom for aged veterans out there. The War Museum people routinely direct queries to these Wikipedia articles, as they increasingly do for a wide variety of questions. - SimonP 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This may or may not be a valid reason for keeping, but it proves that - unlike many that end up in AfD - these articles are useful. --Kizor 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a use essentially indistinguishable from using it as a memorial or genealogical reference, two things that are explicitly called out in Wikipedia is not.... Then again, I hate to say, "Bugger off, our site isn't supposed to be used for this." - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of World War I veterans who died in 2004 (and the others too) so it follows naming conventions more closely. As long as the individuals deserve an article, this list is informative. - Mgm|(talk) 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. They failed to create List of World War I veterans who died in 1991 and left out my grandfather. Durova 16:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or perhaps Merge all pages into one of WWI vets who died in the 21st century. An arbitrary cutoff, but it's about as good as we can do. And I'm really wondering hwo we can merge them into the "Survivors" page when they'r dead. Makes no sense. -R. fiend 16:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is also a problem with most of the individual articles on the survivors. For the one's I looked at, the only reason they have articles is because they happen to be alive. That's not exactly notable. Will their articles be deleted when they die? I suppose they'd have to be, or else they'r jsut articles on average soldiers in WWI who happened to lie at one end of the lngevity bell-curve. -R. fiend 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See my discussion on the subject in the following nomination. The last survivors of an old war become an important source of oral history. Durova 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Slighty off topic but why is it OK to honour Generals but not average soldiers? Most Generals, certainly in the UK and certainly at the time of WW1, did a darned sight less than the average soldier and yet, because they were born into the right family and thus became Generals, they are considered more readily notable!!  (I'm not specifically saying that that is your viewpoint R. Fiend by the way). Marcus22 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't honor anyone. Wikipedia documents encyclopedic topics, topics which have been widely analyzed and discussed. Individual soldiers (generally) fall below that bar. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No I didnt mean Wikipedia honoured Generals. Countries tend to honour the well-born and ignore the rest. Here in France there are streets named after Generals, likewise in the UK.  Few if any are named after Privates.  Its seems rather unfair.  However, on a very closely related subject Wikipedia AfD's do tend to claim that "all nobility is notable" - which is just about the biggest load of t**s I've ever heard.  Marcus22 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get what you're saying about generals. I guess it's just because generals are visible and influential. As for nobility, however (un)important nobility are in a practical sense, they are widely discussed, analyzed, and written-about. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I for one, do not think Generals are inherently encyclopedic, but let's face it, many who fought in wars very are significant historical figures. And MiB is right, we're not honoring anyone. Certainly in terms of heroic deeds, many enlisted men did much more than any general; count the number of congressional medals of honor given to privates and comapre it to the number given to generals. But it is a simple fact that General Patton is an encyclopedic topic. The private who stood next to the guy General Patton slapped is not. Some guy who fought at the Second Battle of Ypres and and lived to be 102 is not any more encyclopedic than the guy who fought next to him who died of cancer at 67. -R. fiend 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree re: Patton and that's a fair point re: the chap at 102 and the chap at 67. I suppose my problem is that in instances such as these, it seems to me that it is recognition which confers notability and not vice versa. (Hence Generals are more typically notable because they are recognised; even though they do not do necessarily do anything in order to become notable).  That recognition, in turn - as is the case with nobility - owes a good deal to the fact that they form a much smaller and more prominent group. Precisely what these Veterans form by virtue of their longevity and relative uniqueness.  Hence keep!  Phew... I'll get off my soap box now ;) Marcus22 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The whole concept is un-encyclopedic. When I was a kid Life magazine would have an article for every Civil War veteran who died, but those deaths were current events, news-worthy because of their rarity, but not historical. At best, I can see a small section in World War I on when the last known veterans for the different countries involved died. - Dalbury (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't do any harm. Carina22 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Or merge into new article, "Last Surviving Veterans of the First World War." France decided in 1998 to honor all veterans who served in France AND were still alive 80 years later with the Legion d'Honneur.  Of course, the number may have been about 2,000.  The real question for me is at what point does the number remaining become significant?  No one even bothered with 1998 and 1999, so the starting point seems to be Jan 1, 2000...those who survived to the new millennium.  I note the 2005, 2004 lists are much better maintained; 2003 and 2002 have some use; 2001 and 2000 are thinner.  So, each article should have been nominated for deletion separately. Also, this is not a "category" list of people with articles: the idea is that while a few of them (Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, Henry Allingham) merit their own articles, the majority do not; hence the list becomes a way to note a few small tidbits about each one.Ryoung122 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is a perfect argument for why these articles should be deleted.  These people are not notable.  QED.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are really being riduclous now: it's just the opposite, madam Zoe. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The point was, this was ALREADY a compromise. Some fanatics went around, trying to create articles for all these people.  Having a list in one place with a small mention seems rational.  There are many instances in which lists are made, and not everyone on the list is notable, but the list itself is.  For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_elements_named_after_people Wikipedia does not yet have a page called Colonel Samarski. Colonel Samarski may not be notable, but "samarium" is. However, if you want to belabor the point, nearly everyone in the lists came from an AP wire story (that is, I found out about Kansas's last veteran from another state, not Kansas).  Also, several of them have seen extensive media coverage, and so it makes sense to have an article that lists them, together with the others who may not warrant a separate article.  Consider, for example, that France currently has six remaining WWI veterans who served 3+ months, and plans to make paintings of them. Henry Allingham of the UK has his own museum exhibit. Also, newspapers tend to mis-inform the public.  In Jan 2005, it was claimed that Carlo Orelli was Italy's last WWI veteran (but there really are more still living). Finally, because what defines a veteran or significance varies,we see for example in Australia, "last Gallipolli survivor," "last digger," "last active-service," "last enlisted," etc.  Clearly, a page with all of them together helps to educate and disambiguate what tends to be a confusing subject. If Wikipedia is ONLY going to have what's in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, then we don't need Wikipedia. Ryoung122 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Exactly the same reason as for the "surviving" veterans article, my dear friends. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As it looks like we're not really moving towards consensus here, a merge, along the lines of what myself and Ryoung122 proposed, might be worth pursuing. Obviously we need a cutoff here (we're not going to have a page for every year), so the 21st century might be a good point (that will involve losing the year 2000 deaths, however). SimonP makes an interesting point. He says that the Canadian War Museum "are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are". I'm sure that's the case. Many people are curious, and I am a bit too. The answer, however, is not several pages of information, but a 2-digit number. I'm sure almost no one is really curious about what their names are, except their families (who obviously know), and some historians (who don't use Wikipedia as a source). And Zoe is quite right, almost all of these are not notable, and do not deserve their own articles (with few exceptions). -R. fiend 22:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I know Wikipedia is not a memorial, but listing those World War 1 veterans who died in a certain year is not a memorial. It should be kept because it can be a reference for people to see how many world war 1 veterans were living in a certain year. Stefan Heikel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.234.163 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 November 2005
 * Delete per nomination. Ejrrjs | What? 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the discussion so far about why these people are notable. I also agree that not all of these people need individual articles, so categories are not the way to go here. I like R. fiend's suggestion. Merge to Veterans of World War I who survived into the 21st Century. Jacqui  ★ 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This is just not encyclopedic. Dottore So 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's just no encyclopedia topic here.  As a veteran, I feel strongly that we should honor these people.  But Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  Rossami &#91;&#91;User talk:Rossami&#124;(talk)]] 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into WWI Veterans who died in 21st Century. This information is useful for researchers and media.  Solidly encyclopedic.  Acctorp 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete where did this information even come from? --TimPope 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Acctorp - JDH Owens&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Jdhowens90&#124; talk]] &#124; &#91;&#91;Wikipedia:Esperanza&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;#339900&quot;&gt;Esperanza&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge as proposed above. For justification see my comments on the AfD on the surviving veterans. I think the 80th anniversary of the ending of the war, when France awarded the Légion d'Honneur, or January 1, 2000, or the beginning of the 21st century, are three possible options for an objective time at which to begin noting the deaths of those who experienced this war. Perhaps a renaming should be considered as these are essentially lists. David &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Dbiv&#124;Talk]] 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whilst this is not the sort of information one would find in a paper encyclopedia, it is, in my opinion, useful, and worth keeping. I followed links to this page having seen a documentary on surviving veterans, and was curious to see if Wikipedia had any further information on the individuals featured, and those still alive in other countries. This is the kind of information I often turn to Wikipedia for, and, I suspect, so do many others. fatbarry2000 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Else, put it in another page for the oldest war veterans by age.-Neal. (first edit by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.170.239 (talk • contribs) ) - Dalbury 11:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unless this info can be verified - in which case keep--Doc ask? 10:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But, Doc, it is definitely verified. Bart Versieck 12:27, 19 November 2005 (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.