Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest military veterans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought about it for a while after this deletion discussion and finally decided to nominate this page and List of verified oldest military veterans, although I figured that they were different enough to warrant separate deletion debates. My reason for deletion is essentially the same as "List of oldest military veterans who died in XXXX": it's really just a collection of original research. There are three big problems as I see it.

  1. There's no definition of "oldest". This is the obvious problem because there's no set criteria for inclusion.
  2. The above problem could easily be rectified, say, by making the cutoff point 100 or 105 or whatever, but then the question remains, why is any one numerical definition of "oldest" any less arbitrary than another? What makes a veteran who died at the age of 100 any different than one who died at 99 or 95? It's a trivial intersection no matter what number you pick.
  3. Although it claims to list the "oldest military veterans", it really lists the "oldest military veterans that we could find". It cites no foundtation and is merely a collection of random news articles about old military people, most of whom are from World War I. Obviously Wikipedia is a work in progress and a complete list would be probably be impossible, but these selections have obviously been chosen from within a small frame of reference.

Furthermore, why is there an "unverified" section? What is "unverified" about them? Is it their age? No, because there's no body that validates people under the age of 110, so those other names wouldn't be on there. Is it their military service? Also no, because no one doubts (for example) that Douglas Terrey served in World War II. As for the "Ancient/Exaggerated veteran claims" who decided that? Where's the source that suggests that Mikhail Efimovich Krichevsky wasn't 111? That's not an unreasoanble claim. Just more original research. This also has the same "western" bias - one Arab who claims he's 134 reperesents all veterans who aren't American or European.

So to summarize: the list a) is original research b) has no defined set of inclusion criteria and c) any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary and/or trivial. Canadian Paul 02:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete i can find no flaws in canadianpauls argument above. i voted delete on the related afd mentioned above. The most generous position i could take is to userfy and completely rewrite to define it as military veteran centenarians, living or deceased, verified only, limited to people with articles only. its really a trivial intersection, the only argument that it could be rescued would be that centenarians usually are notable for that fact alone, and will obviously have their military history mentioned in news articles about them, but the two are still not directly linked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Geez Louise, I can find all sorts of flaws in the deletion argument. It appears to me that sourcing was in progress when the article was nominated. The suggestion seems to be that the entire article should be removed because the nominator is concerned over the choice of words used within the article title and the titles of the article's sections and that all of this is beyond fixing, assuming it even needs to be fixed at all. I can forsee that some people might ask "What does 'oldest' mean? What does 'military' mean? How do you define 'veteran'?" but I would describe that as unreasonable. To me, it would be like going to the gas station and asking the cashier, "How can I be sure this gasoline is unleaded? How can I know that I really am getting ten gallons? How can I be certain that my payment and the change is legal tender?" It's a higher standard than we require here. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your reasoning just fine. I just don't agree with it. I've read nearly every argument against lists that's ever been made on Wikipedia in the last three years, and this isn't new to me. Although the means sometimes differ, the end result -- that the page that is irreparably defective and "must be" deleted-- is usually the same. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Edison in the other related Afd discussion. Every so often, the newspapers report the death of one of these people, so obviously they have no trouble with the criteria.[1][2]. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Is essentially trivia and OR. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. If the articles/entries had references, then the individuals would be notable - but there is very little verification of the information (either directly in this article, or in linked articles), and it appears to be OR. Half of the "verified" entries have neither references nor an article, as is the same for half of the "unverified" entries; only 1/3 of the "verified" entries have articles on Wikipedia, and the same fraction of the "unverified" entries have them; the "Oldest veteans ever" list has no references - I know that 80% of them have articles, but only about half of them have any references in those articles showing that they served; the "Ancient/Exaggerated veteran claims" has no references, and only about 1/3 of the entries have articles - and only one of those actually has a working citation which appears to verify the information. If the statistics were the other way round (2/3 have articles, all referenced) I'd be inclined to say keep, but as this looks like OR (in common with many of the creator's articles) then I've got to go with delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nom and Phantomsteve. Newspapers reported Van Eijkeren, but none I read gave any references. Had not heard of him before this year and I try to follow anything WWII related mentioned in Dutch media. Jarkeld (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can continue after the veterans from WW1 have all gone. The fight for/against all kind of wars of the era in the WW1 article is also solved in this article, veterans from all wars with a reference can be included. There's no organisation like GRG that keeps track of the rank number, so the ranking can be considered original research and may have to go. The list needs a cutoff age that limits the entrys to a manageable number, like age 101 or 102, since otherwise WW2 veterans will make the list huge in a few years. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought this was an obvious keep. But it just lists people who were old and fought in a war. That combination doesn't make someone notable, per se (there's nothing particularly notable about centenarian WW2 veterans right now, since there's an awful lot of younger veterans of that war who are still alive). Comparing all military veterans by age, regardless of what war they were in, also falls within the realm of trivia. What is a very notable topic, frequently covered in the media, are the last surviving veterans of wars. But Wikipedia already has an article List of last living war veterans, as well as dedicated articles for some specific wars and countries. 140.247.253.63 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly valid and useful list that meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists. Kugao (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to repeat my argument from List of verified oldest military veterans AfD: Logic behind the nomination is faulty. Cutoff point complaint is basically a variation of the paradox of the heap; were it valid, we would not have a single list of superlatives. Same with the complaint about incompleteness; were it valid, we would not have a single incomplete list. GregorB (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems no worse then many lists. Besides there is a criteria that could be used to determine who is on the list. Oldest by country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being one of the oldest military veterans IS notable, these afds assume bad faith, im sorry but cp age IS notable and its in the Guinness world record book, and if the accomplishment is listed in Guinness, then that should show that age IS notable, just because your not interested doesnt mean no one has an interest, its notable whether you think so or not, because others think its notable, including news papers and Guinness records, and namely, the GRG, which are all notable. Remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are articles i dont think are notable, but i leave them alone and dont make bad faith afds, because i know they are important to others, why cant you do the same and be tolerant to other people's interests, im sorry if you dont like it, but the world doesnt center around you, and im sorry for that one edit i made on my talk page, but people can only take so much. Theres a saying called live and let live. Longevitydude (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of the time there is an assumption they are military veterans. A lot have no references on this page or on their own page that confirm that they were veterans. (See Phantomsteve's arguments above). Jarkeld (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the names that dont have references and replace them with those that do with references, or better yet try and find references. Longevitydude (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I a page has probloms with some contnet then you fix it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2010 (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.