Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Surviving veterans of World War I/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept 20:29, 15 March 2008.

Surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 30 days, I still think it should be delisted, but I am clearly in the minority. Although it will likely be back here in about a year. Kept -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to nominate the page because format wise, it is quite a solid list. However, it is slowly deleting itself and thus fails criteria 1e. Since January 14, five entries have been removed, including an entire section. Eventually it will have to be deleted. The table does look really good though, so perhaps it could be renamed to Last surviving World War I veterans or something and be expanded. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Last surviving World War I veterans. I suppose it should include the ones who died over the last couple of years, plus the last surviving veteran(s) from each country, regardless of when the last veteran from that country died. (That last addition would mean restoring Wycech as the last verified veteran in Poland, as well as finding the last veterans to die in New Zealand, Romania, etc.) --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there's already a Last surviving World War I veteran by country. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that, but I was thinking of a general list that wouldn't have such limitations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides where to draw the line for "last surviving veterans"? Seems rather subjective to me. The "Veterans of the first world war who died in XXXX" goes back all the way to 1999, but contains hundreds of names. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion so that this content won't eventually be lost because it is a good list. Maybe include all veterans who died after a certain year like 2004 which would be 90 years after the war started. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When it was awarded Feature List status it was already known that it would eventually delete itself - Criteria 1e is a rule primarily in place to protect wikipedia from becoming a nightmare of transitory pap like lists of daily tabloid newspaper headlines. Some lists are not simply a case of 'one glove fits all'. The list of WWE Champions changes about as much as the veterans page but I doubt you would want to see that nominated under 1e either, as you know the list holds interest even though it is a technical rule-breaker (actually that page breaks 1c as well, you need to reference against stuff like PWI, in fact I may well go and slap on a citable sources tag a bit later). The page could probably do with a re-organisation now and eventually it will reduce to the point were it is no longer sensible for it to be a list, it will become an article. That's the point were it should lose FL status, IMO. RichyBoy (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You really can't compare them because this is a completely different list. The List of WWE Champions and many other lists are slowly expanding while this list is shrinking at a much greater rate. FL status should not purposely be a temporary thing. Why not go for something like a list of last veterans, then it won't slowly be deleting itself? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that this list shouldn't be featured because, while it can be maintained/is stable per 1e, it will eventually get to the point where it is no longer able to be featured. Sure, it's sourced now, but maybe even tomorrow it won't be (because there will be no one to source about). —Scouter Sig 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the moment it meets the criteria, as far as I'm concerned. This might become more of an issue eventually, but for now it seems within reasonable limits. Drewcifer (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Keep As said above, it's fine now. It may need to be re-evaluated in a year or two once more have died, but at the moment it seems OK. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.