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 of the debate was split. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Veterans of other conflicts[edit]

Originally proposed for rapid deletion, but moved to AfD for a wider audience -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and merge the veterans listed into their respective war articles. --Bugwit grunt 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and merge per Bugwit. A sparse list, while easily expanded, would be more redundant than listing these individuals on the respective war pages, or even categorizing them. --Kinu 02:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 3 parent articles if any of this itsy-bitsy content isn't covered there; otherwise delete. Barno 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Barno. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article title is nonsense --djrobgordon 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split/merge as appropriate. "Other" is always a bad criteria for a list. --Carnildo 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or merge. The name is nonsense when not given in proper context. The "other" seems to refer to anything that is not explicitly listed otherwise at List of military veterans. btm _talk 07:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Spitty McMergeMerge as per BugWit. Categories would be nice, but I know I'm not going to get a delete on those grounds so I'm grabbing the lesser of two evils. Lord Bob 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Other than what? Articels must stand on their own, not be defiend be exclusion from another artilce not even linked from this one (except via what-links-here). And even if the def were made explicit, this could potentially include most of the 'notable" figureas in history, because a great many of them, probably the majority, have been involved in a war at soemtime or other, and the crestor explained this as including people famopus for other things who were once soldiers. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back in to List of military veterans or split. Kappa 04:20, 7 February 2006 (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.