Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I

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 Snow keepMandsford 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jozef Kowalski doesn't even belong on this list. There is no citation for an enlistment date and nothing that explicitly states he was a veteran of that war. He is no more a veteran of WWI than my cousin is a veteran of Korea (the state of war in Korea has never ended). There is also a technicality that allows service members in the U.S. to declare themselves a veteran of the Gulf War for compensation. To say he was a veteran of WWI even with a citation for the enlistment date would be synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not a one-entry list, removing Jozef still leaves a list around with entries. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Kowalski aside, this list have been developing for a years, and sadly, is probably near its end. There's no harm in letting the article end naturally. Czolgolz (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This list can be automatically deleted once each of the three people listed have died. JIP | Talk 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without Kowalski 2 is still a list. When there is one left then renaming or redirecting the article canb be considered. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'll come to a natural end before too long, and we can then decide what, if anything, we want to do regarding a WWI veterans article - although a list of surviving ones will become obsolete, we may decide there is still sufficient notability to warrant an article of some sort. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forth By Boing! above. Pedro : Chat 11:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been discussed that it will be deleted when the last person on this list dies, even if Mr. Kowalski is the last survivor. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Including or not including Kowalski has no bearing on Choules and Green, who are the primary focus of the list. Eventually, this list should be turned into a redirect/disambig, to preserve the history of the page. Redirecting to this article would probably make the most sense when the time comes.-LtNOWIS (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Why is this article still listed on AfD? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Even with only one surviving veteran, there would still be the possibility (theoretical at worst, unlikely at best) that another veteran may emerge, even as late as 2016 or so. If Kowalski outlives Green and Choules then the article could start along the lines of "It is believed that no veterans of the First World War are now living..." with perhaps a link to a new commemorative article detailing perhaps the last 25 of so veterans. After Kowalski's demise, the new commemorative article could then replace the existing one and the discussion forum on the new article could explore any new claims that could in theory emerge. We could even then be faced with the prospect of resurrecting the original article! If Green or Choules are the last surivivor,after his/her death any search for "surviving veterans of World War I" should automatically redirect to the new article. For me at least, a list can have one name. Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the criteria for deletion are in the original request and Wikipedia should strive to be a website of record, so this is a relevant list Mabuse (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country of which two entries of this list are already listed, and note the Polish guy there as well. This list is redundant to that one and anyone looking for living veterans will be redirected to it. Lafe Smith (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country Same as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.64.194 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete List is questionably historically accurate at this point anyway and if there is already a more complete article on this subject already as mentioned several times on this page, I see no reason for this to be an article. This article should have no special treatment that other articles have not been allowed. Lord Hawk (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as the Grand Army of the Republic dissolved only after the death of its final member, so should this article remain until the death of its final member. At this point it should be turned into a redirect, thus preserving the article history.--Echetus Xe 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a list WP:NOT. That's policy. Make it an article instead. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, and I don't see how a three-person list really does much good; however, some people see the value in it, so I'd say let it die when its remaining occupants do. Once we're down to one or none, this can be deleted, but I suppose with three left it's a little early. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I agree the article should be kept available until the natural attrition of the remaining people on the list, removes the relevance of the article. [User:Gorman33]] (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.144.97 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. I'm rather suprised by this nomination, it smacks of frivolousness to nominate a list for deletion because of a disagreement over one entry (even if that entry makes up a third of the list). I'll also respond to the the only policy-based argument for deletion, which was KoshVorlon's claim that this list violates WP:NOT, which makes me question: which clause? It doesn't qualify as a violation of WP:NOT#OR (the dispute not withstanding), WP:NOTMEMORIAL (how can it memorialize a person who still lives?), WP:NOTDIR (not a directory), nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE (a very clear and specific scope that is not a trivial intersection). However, it does seem rather redundant to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, and will eventually have to be redirected there once the last of the survivors die (which is likely to be soon, given thier advanced ages). Most of the information that is unique to the current article can be easily moved, and the edit history preserved with a redirect. I alo not with suprise and mournful regret to see that Frank Buckles passed yesterday, perhaps the impetus behind this motivation? bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's the best merge/redirect target. This list has information that the "by country" list won't have. Either Green or Choules will be the last remaining UK veteran, and only one will eventually be included on the by country list. The two lists have different scopes; one is by country, while the other is by date of death regardless of country. So a merge wouldn't really work. If anything, an eventual redirect to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-11 would make more sense than a redirect by country article. Also, the "by country" article doesn't have "World War I era" veterans, while the "veterans who died in 2009-2011" one does. So Kowalski will eventually go on the 2009-2011 article, while the by country article already has Stanisław Wycech for Poland. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Choules are both already on the by country list. One of them will presumably pre-decease the other and will be removed from both lists at the same time so the fact that there are two left from one country doesn't argue for maintaining both. Lafe Smith (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion argument. Re. Jozef Kowalski - argue it on the talk page, add a footnote, or whatever. That still leaves the other two. Chzz ► 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Articles subject has received a plethora of news coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. No need to delete until the people concerned are no longer with us and the article's subject is therefore N/A. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy keep - aside from the article being a notable intersection and near a natural death anyway, the nomination statment is very odd, indeed; aside from its using in Korea and the Gulf War in an attempt to illustrate a point, which I'm not quite sure I've got, it's invalid per the deletion policy: disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 1 March 2011 (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.