Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. List of Medal of Honor recipients is an article that exists, with several spinoffs to accommodate the large number of recipients of this medal. Given that, any argument to keep this list needs to demonstrate that sources deal with this topic independent of the list of all recipients; i.e., that sources have covered the currently living recipients as a body, rather than as single recipients or among all recipients. Those arguing to keep in this AfD have not done so. I'm not even giving much weight to the concerns that this list will have high turnover; that's probably a subject for a wider discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of living Medal of Honor recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic cross-categorisation of "living people" and "medal of honor recipients". Nothing to demonstrate that recipients who are still alive are independently notable as a group from recipients as a whole; therefore failing WP:LISTN (and also WP:NINHERITED - it's not because the MOH is notable that a list of living recipients is); as well as being duplicative of existing lists where readers can just as well find the same information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone's on a tear about deleting articles. Can you honestly NOT see someone wondering how many MOH recipients are alive and from which conflicts? Bkatcher (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bkatcher: Please retract that dubious ad hominem. As for the rest; WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a good argument unless you can come up with sources which show this to be interesting. There are a lot of things which are "interesting" at least according to some people but which are not of encyclopedic interest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This seems rather pointy on 9/11, when there's a convention of living MOH recipients taking place in Boston as reported in the press such as this. The group is obviously notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Your comment is the unsupported WP:Clearly notable. Unless you can show sources which specifically show that this is a notable group (as opposed to MOH recipients as a whole). Which of course are sorely lacking, since you seem to have resorted to bad-faith accusations and other arguments which are rather nearer to the wrong end of this pyramid than one would like (why would I be expected to know about something happening in Boston and which is apparently mostly covered in local news?). In any case, the MOH convention doesn't look like it is limited in topic to only the "living" recipients: their website clearly states that "The annual Society conventions allow Recipients to reconnect with one another, remember those who have passed, ...") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the Medal of Honor Society a source 'which specifically show that this is a notable group'? https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients Bkatcher (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious which ships are currently transiting the Panama Canal. Some sources report this information. Should Wikipedia mirror this ever-changing WP:DIRECTORY, too? pburka (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So...we shouldn't have articles that might change one day? Bkatcher (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally not. An encyclopedia should communicate accumulated knowledge. It's ok for that knowledge to grow and be corrected over time, but information that's constantly changing isn't encyclopedic, so I don't think we should have pages whose primary subject isn't accumulated knowledge. Some pages might have a component that reflects the current state of the topic (e.g. infoboxes for cities or countries or a section listing current members of the Security Council), but I believe topics with only current information (e.g. lists of scheduled events, lists of current products, or lists of living people) are usually unencyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can certainly imagine someone wondering how many MOH recipients are alive, but lots of interesting things aren't encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A better argument might be that living MOH recipients have been discussed as a group: the Congressional Medal of Honor Society maintains a list of living recipients and the group is meeting in Boston right now. On the other hand, this information is easily available outside of Wikipedia from a more authoritative source (CMOHS), and it's unclear why we should mirror their list. I'm skeptical of any content that needs to be constantly maintained (i.e. entries removed and added) especially when it involves living people. And this seems an awful lot like a WP:DIRECTORY. I'm open to being persuaded, but right now this looks like a case of WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation per WP:NLIST. pburka said it perfectly. I see no reason for us to mirror CMOHS; particularly when interested readers can always access their list at any point in time.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and succinct analysis by pburka. Every MoH awardee has (or is notable enough to have) a page, we don't need to know the exact number of them alive at any time any more than "which ships are currently transiting the Panama Canal". Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly support a separate list. Living members are public figures and are often in the news. Wikipedia is my first stop for lists of the highest living award holders. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual members being in the news does not mean that this a valid list topic (independently of the group of all award holders, living or not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. The Congressional Medal of Honor Society maintains a list, but I don't see anybody else doing so. Simplest solution is to add an external link to the CMOHS list in List of Medal of Honor recipients. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Congressional Medal of Honor Society does not maintain a list of living recepients. It's just a master database of everyone that's got one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful article, and the sort of thing wikipedia generally publishes. Certainly notable, and certainly of interest to the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Respecive articles like List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients could denote those who are still alive. Reywas92Talk 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, why have all the names in one article when we have have them in four? How is that more convenient? Bkatcher (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, that article doesn't indicate whether the veteran is still alive, unless the medal was awarded posthumously. Bkatcher (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's why I said it could also indicate that! Why does it need to be convenient to be in one article when this is not a notable intersection in the first place? I love considating related articles, but why have four when we could have a single convenient list with every recipient, living and dead??? We have thousands of lists of people, and it's unnecessary to have another page that duplicates a subset based on whether they are living. Reywas92Talk 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been thinking about this one for a few days and can't see a compelling reason to keep. It's marginal WP:LISTN at best but, to me, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. Most of the keep !votes boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSINTERESTING or WP:ITSNOTABLE. As Clarityfiend suggested, an extlink to https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients in List of Medal of Honor recipients would be perfectly adequate. pburka (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's useful. It's referenced and linked. ​It's a small group. It is useful and informative. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. And conversely, do you have a source that it's "not iinteresting." We should be thinking about readers and how they use this encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know damn well that "It's referenced and linked" is not a basis for keeping an article. List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients is also referenced and linked. It could include whether someone is alive too, if that's so useful, though I question that because we really don't need to distinguish this on our countless other lists of people, as "informative" as that could be to duplicate content for any subset of additional facts. Reywas92Talk 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reywas92 "You know damn well" that this should be about its usefulness to readers. It is a well illustrated and useful list. And you ought not to be speculating about my knowledge or intent. It was a borderline WP:Personal attack. So striking the comment would be the right thing to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many of these list are going to be sent to AFD? Category:Lists of living people You should've just done them all at once together since the same argument against them is made. It is a valid navigational list, all items link to their own articles, and a valid reason for grouping people together on it is clear. Dream Focus 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the brigade is here. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list says "Focus on improving content", but it's not clear how this should be done when 7&6=thirteen just inappropriately canvasses this with the word "Really?" without "any ideas to improve the content."
      "It is a valid navigational list, all items link to their own articles" This is false, there is no basis that just because there are blue links listed it cannot be deleted: List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War already provide navigation between the articles and this duplicates them. Reywas92Talk 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I participate in all list articles and have for years now. You can check my recent contributions and see I have participated in multiple list articles up for deletion. I would've found my way here whether it was tagged for Rescue or not. Dream Focus 17:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other lists like this and I can think of no good reason why this one doesn't also belong. It's interesting to many people. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:INTERESTING are both arguments to avoid. And several of the pages you linked to are also currently being considered for deletion. pburka (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just used the OTHERSTUFF argument right after you said to avoid it, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand. Do you mean where I pointed out that even if OTHERSTUFF were a valid argument the other stuff you linked to doesn't support your case? pburka (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The way you phrased didn't make it clear that it was conditional on the argument being valid, but I see your point. However, compiling a list, possibly with the help of other editors, and adding it to a list of lists, holds more weight to me than someone jumping around tagging lists for deletion, so if OTHERSTUFF were valid, I would say that the argument to keep based off of it is stronger than to delete it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I propose that the way to improve this list (and most of the lists in that category) is to incorporate the information into existing similar lists rather than keeping a nonencyclopedic cross-categorizations of MOH recipients and people whom we believe are alive. pburka (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • 'Whom we believe are alive'? Are you suggesting the Medal of Honor Society is in error? Bkatcher (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • All we can say with confidence is that they were alive the last time a reliable source reported that they were living. Maintaining lists of living people is inherently a BLP problem, but the more high-profile they are the more timely our updates will be. While it's problematic, this list is in far better shape than, say List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. pburka (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep arguments are mostly WP:ILIKEIT. This list is a redundancy in the face of other lists of MOH recipients. Not to mention that it is a perpetually moving target (not automatically disqualifying but not very encouraging, quality articles are supposed to be stable.) The whole "Recently deceased" section is a WP:NOTNEWS violation, as it is determined by a very much temporally-relative term. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are actual organizations better-placed to track this, and Wikipedia shouldn't be (poorly) duplicating their efforts. Intothatdarkness 22:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Intothat et al. Bad list articles seem to have become vote brigading targets and the behavior demonstrated by some of these pile-on “keep” users is getting highly dubious and borderline disruptive, especially the baseless ad hominem attack that this was somehow deliberately nominated on 9/11 to... do something offensive, I guess? Dronebogus (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a content expert and this and other lists on the chopping block are on my watchlist and more than once Wikipedia has alerted me to a change in the list. As I suggested in one other list, an issue with lists is the prose which is a precis, not always accurate, of the main article. The only prose should cover the content of the list with all information about the award to be found in the main article. I find lists valuable, and use them. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically you’re saying “WP:ILIKEIT” which as discussed isn’t a legitimate argument even if you’re a topic expert. Albert Einstein could say he liked an article on general relativity and found it useful but that still wouldn’t save it if he didn’t have valid, objective reasons for keeping it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I like it. More importantly, I regularly edit the main Medal of Honor article. eg. 'Found 53 edits by Anthony Staunton on Medal of Honor (1.16% of the total edits made to the page)'. So my defence of this and other lists of living recipients is that these awards and the lists are articles to which I regularly use and contribute. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You… just said basically the same thing twice. “I like it, more importantly I edit this topic a lot because I like it”. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of how much you like it, you should only !vote once. pburka (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (people really think this should be deleted?) MoH recipients are rare, living ones rarer still, which is why they receive so much media coverage, as they're getting their medal from the President of the United States, and which is also one reason that makes this information encyclopaedic. Also, I damn well agree with 7&6=thirteen. - wolf 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "they're getting their medal from the President of the United States"? They got the medal a long time ago. These aren't people who were living when they received the MOH: this is the subset of MOH recipients who are alive right now (or at least that's what we claim; we can't prove it). The individual MOH recipients are all notable, of course, but what makes this grouping of them notable? pburka (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "These aren't people who were living when they received the MOH..." Um, what...? - wolf 21:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There have been 3508 MOH awarded and 2890 of the recipients were awarded the MOH while they were living. The list of 2890 people who received the MOH while living might be encyclopedic, as might the list of 618 who weren't, but this isn't that. pburka (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then what is it? (And I expect an answer to that). Meanwhile, of 3500+ that rec'd the award, almost half were during the Civil War, and many of those were for silly things like watering your CO's horse and showing up for guard duty sober. But, the military cracked down on that sort of thing, and now it's only awarded for true acts valor and gallantry, regardless of risk to one's own life and while engaged with the enemy. Any recipient, from the Civil War right up to the present who truly deserved the medal for those reasons, is a notable person. It doesn't matter if the medal was awarded posthumously or not, they are notable either way. And therefore so is this list. I'm not sure why you think it must be deleted, but maybe you cover that while you're explaining... everything else you've said above. - wolf 22:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to be quite darn confused. This isn't List of Medal of Honor recipients. Even if somehow you're saying that a list of living ones is acceptable, that's already dealt with in my nomination ("NINHERITED"), and the rest of your comment reads like WP:ITSIMPORTANT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's a difference between "being confused" and pointing out that someone else's comments seem confusing. Either way, your reply is "quite darn" rude, people don't always agree on the things here, no matter how much Wikilink-salad you toss at them, surely you realize this by now. - wolf 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • ”Wikilink salad” is merely citing policy via shortcuts, which is a fair sight better at making a convincing argument than simply saying things like “it’s important” “I like it” “people care about it” “reliable sources exist [none provided]”. In any case could we try to work towards some kind of consensus and stop attempting to make childish zingers at one another? And “consensus” doesn’t mean “brute force a stalemate with a billion canvassed keep votes with no arguments attached” Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A) Those are not "policies", they're essays. B) You're attributing numerous quotes to me that I never wrote. C) Are you sure about the sources? (rhet.) D) So I'm "childish", but you can post rude, uncivil, multiple-policy violating rant and that's ok? I think we're done here. - wolf 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • B— I was being rhetorical and describing a number of !keep votes. C— no, but labeling a question rhetorical means you think the answer is so obvious it needs no evidence. D— I was criticizing both you and RandomCanadian among others in this discussion. I’m sorry if I come across as rude, I’m just frustrated. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm curious what you believe the inclusion criteria are for this list. It's certainly not the list of people who received the MOH while they were still living. It's the list of MOH recipients who didn't die before September 1, 2020. pburka (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sure you are, but simple fact is everyone (including you) get's a !vote and mine is to "keep". It's up to the closer to determine how much weight they'll give my !vote, not you. You don't like my !vote but, but that's not my problem. Trying to drag this on into a endless circular debate is not going to accomplish anything, so how about you stop all this badgering and find something better to do? Thank you - wolf 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone here suggested this information is elsewhere on the internet. It's not - one site has a databases where you can search ALL medail recepients, but this is the only place currently where you can see current living recepients - so its unique information, that certainly serves a purpose for people researching or just interesting in the MOH. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn’t that person also refute that with a link to https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients? Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but they're not linked to wikipedia articles, separated by conflict and branch, etc. This article is useful. Bkatcher (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it might be useful, if you're interested in this detail. So is a detailed roadmap updated with road closures and traffic information. Doesn't mean either belongs in an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge, not a directory or a case study. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom's and pburka's assessments. The keep !votes all fall into either WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, or WP:OSE. All arguments to be avoided at AfD.Onel5969 TT me 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_recipients&oldid=1045119512"