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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War II[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is a page which will eventually reach a content count of zero. It's not necessarily inclusive and probably never will be. There was a previous discussion about deleting the article conducted at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War II and a discussion conducted here at AfD. There is some support at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of surviving veterans of World War II‎ for a World War II list similar to List of last World War I veterans by country. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list gets nearly 1,000 views per day, showing it to be a great example of how wikipedia is different from a regular encyclopedia. There are many news articles which list living WWII vets from a region, so there are reliable sources that suggest listing in this way is not OR. Almost all of the individuals (and in theory all of them) have pages. Also, when the list does get small, it would be nice to have it as a redirect rather than a delete, as we have for the former Featured List, List of surviving veterans of World War I, so that the history is kept. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a frequently viewed, frequently edited article. I see no reason to delete it. Czolgolz (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I feel like this verges on WP:CRYSTAL BALL of those lists that have the last survivors of a particular war, but as said above, it's become a relevant focal point with reliable sources. South Nashua (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only place where information of notable WWII-time persons, who still are alive, can be found.--Nillurcheier (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a list declining in size is not sufficient rationale to delete it. DrStrauss talk 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL to say that they will all die eventually, and that the list will eventually become comprehensive. That said, the latter is still about 10 years away, and the former perhaps 20. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with the publicity surrounding the death, on February 27, 2011, of Frank Buckles, there is interest as to who will be the Frank Buckles of World War II. Since the time period between Armistice Day on November 11, 1918 and VJ Day on August 15, 1945 is 26 years, 9 months and 4 days, if any American veteran of World War II is still with us on December 1, 2037, 20 years, 9 months and 5 days away, he or she will have matched Frank Buckles. Each nation that participated in the war has or will have its own Frank Buckles equivalent. Let us make it easier to keep track of this rapidly diminishing company. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of notable individuals with a clear inclusion criteria, easily meeting WP:SAL. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well established and relevant, and likely to become even more relevant in coming years. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' a non-useful list with too many red links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single red link on the page. Czolgolz (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually a few, but it stretches the limits of credulity to say that there are too many. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned through the article and found less than 20 redlinks. Out of nearly 1000 entries, that's a minor issue. Some of them appear to be broken links to the German language Wikipedia. It's an editing issue, but not even remotely grounds for deletion. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles such as this one improve Wikipedia, as has been demonstrated throughout the various arguments above. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (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.