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
Apparently malformed nom by NickOrnstein as follows:
JJB 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Apparently malformed nom by NickOrnstein as follows:
JJB 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.
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
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
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
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
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