Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of surviving veterans of World War I/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 16:28, 2 June 2009.

List of surviving veterans of World War I
Archive 1


 * Notified: RichyBoy, WikiProject World's Oldest People, WikiProject Biography/Military and WikiProject Military history/World War I task force.

It's unfortunate, because I really like the formatting of the list, but it is slowly self-deleting itself (in my mind, it fails criterion 6 - stability) and has now fallen below ten items. I wish there was some way we could keep the content, such as by adapting List of last surviving World War I veterans by country or creating a "List of last surviving veterans of World War I". -- Scorpion 0422  04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject of the list is what causing the problem. Since any survivor of the war will eventually died, the list will eventually be have zero item. I think Scorpion0422's suggestion might work.— Chris!  c t 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per Scorpion0422's and my reason above— Chris!  c t 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But would the choice of how many not be arbitary? The last 10, 25, 100? If there is nothing to highlight the last ten compared to the 11th, i don't think such a list would be featurable.
 * Anyway, agree that the current list is not sustainable, being too short, and likely to shrink to nothing very soon, so an unfortunate delist.YobMod 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I suggested in the previous FLRC, the cutoff could be 2004, which would be 90 years after the start of the war. This would result in a pretty good sized list of about 300 entries. -- Scorpion 0422  15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too agree that the present list is unsustainable and will eventually cease to exist at its current rate. However, I do favour your suggestion, Scorpion0422; the 2004 cutoff could potentially present a favourable list with a substantial amount of entries and works well time wise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think its fair to say that a list which covers a changing topic fails criterion 6 because its content changes, particularly has it has to change to stay in line with criterion 3 and criterion 6 is really about edit wars and the like. I think that this list still meets the criteria, and the fact that it's shrinking and will eventually self-delete is (sadly) natural and an advantage of Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still would be delisted as it's passed the unofficial ten item limit and will only decrease in size. Whether the editors of the list wish to incorporate the 90-year cutoff as Scorpion suggested is another matter, but as it stands, this isn't getting any bigger. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is a pity. But I guess the 10-item rule rules. I'd love it to be restructured, merged into another, whatever. But I agree with Scorpion as it stands. Is it worth going back to WikiProject MilHist and asking for more input? Tony   (talk)  16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the current state-of-play for this article? Everyone seems to like Scorpion's idea of making it a List of the last surviving World War I veterans (or some other title), but has anyone actually made an attempt to do this, or will it be archived because no one can be bothered? It shouldn't be difficult to do; move the page, check the history, and re-add the names of those who have been removed since 2004. An additional column for Date of Death may be worth adding. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b (Not 6 though; how frequently does the subject matter change?). Doesn't even meet the unofficial pre-3b 10-item limit. A shame too, because the referencing and lead of this one is really quite good. I do hope that someone takes the initiative to merge / shift material to a better article, but that's not the concern of FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.