Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination) - 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 delete. The question here is: "Is this article Original research?" The consensus would appear to be that it is, and as such it should be deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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)

Apparently malformed nom by NickOrnstein as follows:

===My opinion on deletion=== I am nominating this article for deletion because there are no sources saying that Choules, for example, is the 3rd oldest veteran in the world. There have been tons of other World War II veterans, for example on Willard Scott's centenarian birthday wishes on NBC. The only ones being listed are well known ones. There is no list saying the oldest military veterans ever (that I can find). Ranks should not be included because no source is supporting almost all of the people on the page. Sources aren't being cited. A whole lot of this information is original research. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJB 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.

The chronological information isn't used in any of the sources. It's ridiculous having a top 50 oldest veteran list ever when no sources are being cited about for example, Józef Kowalski being the 16th oldest veteran to ever live, this is total original research. There is a 135 year old claimant from named Nasir Al-Hajry, another being 120. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that sorting a list of data qualifies as OR/SYNTH or a reason for deletion. If the issue is the numbered ranking, that can be easily addressed without deletion by removing the row. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there haven't been any satisfactory replies, I'm going to go with my gut here and say keep. I don't think that the given rationale is worthy of deletion; while there are issues that can be dealt with, a re-write need not necessarily entail a full-on deletion. I think that the topic of the list is not a trivial intersection or lacking in encyclopedic notability; though it could use some more clear definition (as in what age marks the threshold, and what constitutes military service). But in all, AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I'd like to point out that for JJBulten to "second the deletion" is disingenuous. Check the talk page of Nick Ornstein, it was virtually JJBulten's idea. CANVASSING is against Wiki-policy.

But checking out the article in itself, it holds value. It helps to answer questions that many ask, such as "who is the oldest veteran ever"? The article may warrant some refinement, but that's no reason for deletion.Ryoung122 06:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Users, please welcome Ryoung122's unique style to the mixup. If he means where I told Nick, "I have gone ahead," and Nick replied, "Thank you John. I had trouble trying to nominate deletion on these pages," Ryoung122 is obviously misinformed. Ryoung122 should also source the weasel WP:WORDS "many ask" (which should be a simple matter given his apparent extensive access on this topic), and it is also appropriate to mention his oft-discussed COI, which also includes his own experience with understanding canvassing.
This nom is one of seven initiated by NickOrnstein and seconded (or firsted if incomplete) by me. Nick, Ryoung122, and other occasional editors are generally very inclusionist in this topic area; I have long argued for a "reasonable" cutback; and new discussion at the fringe-theory noticeboard and elsewhere (not initiated by me) has brought in two outside editors that appear to favor even further "reasonable" cutback. I took the opportunity of Nick's activity to initiate the community process of discussing the deletion needs of the whole topic area as per the consensus at the FTN, beginning with the 7 articles he chose.
As to this article, an apparent majority rule that is not fully agreed is that only people aged over 110 (supercentenarians) have inherent line-item notability for inclusion in lists. There is some wiggle room for those under 110 who are the oldest in some widely notable category, but the leeway should not be based on creating OR categories, nor does it generally extend past the oldest (or sometimes second oldest) in the category.
The general lackadaisical approach to longevity articles is also shown in this topic by the first table being wholly incorporated in and redundant with the third. The third and largest table is also almost wholly unsourced except for WP links. Without checking, it is my supposition backed by experience that many of the linked articles are created by the same group of editors and lack the notability of some of the other names Nick requested for deletion, a notability that User:Griswaldo challenged categorically at the FTN. Given that, the topic has only five sourced supercentenarians, not enough for a notable list, and no assertion that the topic itself, "oldest military veterans" as a general list, is notable. The article is also relatively redundant with the manifold other "War-related lists" at Template:Longevity, without doing an hour of comparisons to determine the degree of redundancy.
I do note that all 5 of the sourced supercentenarians each appear in WP at least 4 times, which is excessive. Nick's mention of the 135-year-old is also an excellent demonstration of workgroup bias in favor of modernly-verified claimants (53) as opposed to unverified claimants (4 plus Nick's), which is an inherent POV not easily remedied by less than WP:TNT. There is also the topic-wide problem of presenting very old people who were alive in 2006 (Buckles) as if it has been verified that they are alive today, when IMHO WP should not make an explicit statement for or against whether the person is still alive (while still treating them under WP:BLP and WP:BDP), a general exception I propose to the basic policy of assuming people are still alive (what if Buckles's death remains unreported indefinitely?).
Even the statements made to categorize the claims demonstrate the inherent lack of POV standards; the unverifieds are called "Claimants who served for their country", as if the service has been verified while the age hasn't, but then in all 4 cases the service is also later discounted as an unverified "claimed service", a contradiction (not to mention a WP:CLAIM violation). So what's been verified and who can tell? Without going into the motives of WP:WOP for maintaining what has been repeatedly characterized as a WP:WALLEDGARDEN (of Babylonian proportions, I add), I think this set of AFDs is a reasonable first step at determining the limits of encyclopedicity of longevity. JJB 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I requested assistance on nominating remove articles. John Bulten was the first to do so. If it was Robert or anyone else, I would have approved. I am not choosing any sides, I am choosing my side on removing this article, and on the subject. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, your argument has two holes in it.

1. You claim that age 110 is the cutoff minimum, but the "oldest veterans" are as old as 115.

2. In fact, the age cutoffs are for general-age notability. Cutoff may be lower for other topics, in combination, whether it be "oldest twins," "oldest married couples", etc. So, to claim that "oldest military veterans" should go with the general cutoff standard is in fact not correct.

And the point I made is that you, as you admit above, have been campaigning to have cutbacks in this area; bringing in other people from a pro-cutback cabal (fringe theory noticeboard), and then "launching" messages. Anyone who knows boxing knows what a one-two punch is. When you have a two-fisted "attack", the article doesn't get a fair chance. I note that a previous AFI resulted in this article being kept, there's no explanation for this delete-again.

I also note that of the 7 aricles nominated for deletion, I voted on two of them to keep. I realize the article on the 103-year-old Irishman wasn't notable, but a general-interest article on veterans should be.

And forget the idea of "voting," it's who has the strongest argument. The FACTS of the matter is that such material is reported in the media, and has been for many years. We've seen "oldest veteran" stories in the media in the 1990s, the 1950s, many different decades. Each person might not be individually notable but as a group there is a reason for an article.Ryoung122 22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Your two points were already addressed. To correct errors in the above, I did not initiate FTN, or the prior mediation, or this nom; and I empathize with articles not having a fair chance, but we have discussed the topic-area problems for 1.5 years and this is the first AFD, so you've had time to fortify the topic area. You might converse with Nick about his explanation for nom at this time. Please limit this discussion to matters pertinent to deletion of the article, thank you. JJB 11:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


KeepThis is ridiculous, the article has already survived one afd, whats the point in another, maybe there needs to be a limit to how many afds articles can have before there not allowed to get any more. Longevitydude (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna repeat what a different editor said in the first afd:

If a page has probloms with some contnet then you fix it.Longevitydude (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The rankings are WP:OR. The lists are simply an amalgamation of different sources in an attempt to further a position by introducing the ranks. There's no definition on what constitutes a verified/unverified veteran. The oldest-ever list is incomplete and shows bias. Where are the veterans from wars prior to 1914? Where are all the other female veterans? SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the ones who have sources should be listed, maybe then it won't come off as original research, and if you think it has problems fix it, if you know that some veterans are missing add them, if someone doesnt have citations or sources remove them. Longevitydude (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These arguments are fixits: enumeration column; very incomplete; very unsourced; questionability of ranks; OR; redundancy; alive-in-2006 treated as alive-today; contradiction about (verifiable) service vs. claimed service; WP:CLAIM; pro-20th-century bias; pro-male bias. These deletion arguments are not fixits: potential wideness of category and sparseness of fill leading to undue-weight magnet by any scope; "[list of] oldest military veterans" not a topic with significant coverage in reliable sources (OR title); sort by age not found in sources either; no line-item notability for majority in current scope (under 110); no lowest cutoff age found in sources; trivial intersection; lack of definition of military service; linked COI and controverted volubility of Ryoung122 demonstrating ongoing antipolicy militancy; linked FTN position strongly deletionist (2 primary editors there have not commented yet); no line-item notability for runner-ups in categories; nonnotability of individual WP articles; current sourced supercentenarians too short a list to be notable; redundancy with other war-longevity articles; excessive WP appearances of people notable for inclusion in only one or two lists; bias against unverifieds being better solved by delete (and restart, if at all); SiameseTurtle sees "attempt to further a position by introducing the ranks"; and WALLEDGARDEN. Proposals for fixing all these nonfixits are welcome. JJB 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I have notified the two primary editors who have taken an interest in the topic area in general at FTN. JJB 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Longevitydude (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid and useful list that meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists. Longevitydude (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reasons that I nominated this article for the first time. To summarize that argument: 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. The full explanation is at the first AFD and there's no need to reproduce it here. Canadian Paul 05:28, 30 October 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.