Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of the First World War

Closure analysis
Here's how my closing worked:

I did not count any votes made by an IP address or a sockpuppet user. I also did not count the votes placed by User:Ryoung122, User:Bart Versieck, and User:Acctorp, as their contributions were centered mainly around this article and other lists of surviving WWI veterans.

That being said, here are the numbers:
 * 12 delete
 * 24 keep
 * 1 refactor (made by User:Haukurth)
 * 1 move (made by User:Astrokey44)

The total adds up to 38 votes. 24 divided by 38 is about 63%, lower than my keep threshold of 66%, so the result is no consensus, which defaults to keep anyway.  Rob e  rt  T 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I thought that the deletion threshold was somewhere between 66% and 80%, but the keep threshold was 50%. Anything between that is a no consensus. David | Talk 23:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not count any votes made by an IP address or a sockpuppet user. I also did not count the votes placed by User:Ryoung122, User:Bart Versieck, and User:Acctorp, as their contributions were centered mainly around this article and other lists of surviving WWI veterans.
 * Eh? Eh? Come again? People get denied a vote becuase they thought around a topic? Because they had the brass-bound audacity to reason in a manner you disapprove of? Where the hell do you get off doing that? Icundell 00:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, relax. David, if more than 66% of the vote is keep, then I count it as keep. If it's more than 66% is delete, then I count it as delete. Anything else, I count as no consensus. There is no solid rule as to what an administrator decides is keep or delete.


 * Icundell, I discounted those three votes because a vast majority of their edits were to that page. I didn't disapprove of their reasoning. Read other AfD debates and you will find that I'm not the first one to do something like that.  Rob e  rt  T 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * huh? So, having an interest in a subject disqualifies one from voting? Riiiiight. Some people have narrow interests. You are saying that people should be denied a vote on something they are interested in, because that is all they are interested in. Your logic is not like our Earth logic (backs away slowly, hands raised). Icundell 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no. I think you're missing the point. It's better to have opinions from outside parties, is it not? They're not emotionally attached to the article in any way. Please, show me where I said that people couldn't have narrow interests.


 * Why do you insist on arguing about this? The article was kept; it's over and done with.  Rob e  rt  T 17:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What does emotional attachment have to do with anything? What I said is that your approach effectively excludes those with narrow interests from voting on the things in which they have an interest. That is monkey crackers. The only basis for excluding a vote should be if it is a sockpuppet.
 * And to answer you second question, because it is exactly this kind of half-arsed thinking that has caused too many good editors I have dealt with to drift away. Probably including me, probably fairly soon. You edit, you vote. How complex can that be? Icundell 11:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Because it's easier for people who work on an article that's put up for deletion to vote "keep" out of spite, not because it reflects the overall quality of the article. Once again, you assume that I am not allowing people interested in the topic to vote, which is untrue. I put less weight on the votes from the people who created it, as they can be biased from the fact that they put time and energy into making the article and simply want to make them worth it.
 * Ever heard of an impartial jury? Voir dire? People who have had an emotional experience similar to that of the defendent are excluded. (Then again, the jury selection system is different in the US than the UK, so I'm probably falling on deaf ears there, huh?)
 * As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, as it is evident that nothing can get through to you. Feel free to keep trying to prove your point here, but I'm not interested in this anymore.  Rob e  rt  T 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Earth logic"? Is that some sort of universally accepted concept, or a product of your own personal opinion? More like "Icundell logic", if you ask me.

Strong Keep. Let the WW1 Veterans be honored and the remaining 80 or so worldwide have their stories and last days kept on here. Soon enough they will be all gone.. leaving an aching empty void. They are "national and international trasures", anyone who does not think so simply does NOT understand what they stand for. Respect them!


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ejrrjs | What? 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep
Strong Keep These people were not only witnesses to events of great historical importance - they were also participants. Their actions helped enable the events to unfold that have given us the lasting legacy of those people, places and impacts that are now deservedly ensconsed in the pages of history.

These living links, to what is for most of us is a distant past, are invaluable - just by living and being acknowledged - in their ability to bring that history alive and relevant. The list of real, living participants in these key events that directly lead to the modern western world, cannot help but pique the interests and curiousity of those who otherwise may have had limited awareness or interest in this key historical event.

Lastly, for all of the positives of keeping this list, to what or to whom, does the maintenance of this list detriment?

STRONG KEEP !!!
These men, talking specifically about the Americans for now, fought to make the world a better place. A world safe for democracy and for an end to autocracy. The offered their lives for our future. That the war didn't bring that about wasn't their fault. This is critical information in remembering the sacrifices of so many - those that strove to give us the freedom to rant and rave on an Internet they never imagined. KEEP IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermontusa (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed so, I honestly cannot agree more. Bart Versieck 14:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your disrespect for non-Americans stuns me. How dare you?  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What disrespect you mean, come again? Bart Versieck 11:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Apart from the whole attempt to turn wikipedia into a military shrine, the placing of Americans above the rest of us. Saying that it was specifically Americans who wanted to make the world a better place implies that everyone else didn't.  It's particularly annoying as this is an article about WWI, a war which was not primarily about ideology, so much as territory and influence, and a war in which the US arrived late and played a relatively small part.  (See World War I casualties)  The whole idea that a soldier that survived the war is automatically and intrinsically more honourable than a civilian who didn't upsets me too.  Regards, Ben Aveling 19:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But are you talking to me now? Bart Versieck 19:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree with VermontUSA's statement at the start of this section, then yes. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think, by saying talking specifically about the Americans for now, he meant to emphasize their specific contributions, because he is himself an American, but, in my honest opinion, I don't think he wanted to forget about, let alone omit, the Australian, Canadian and European sacrifices in the same war. Bart Versieck 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)