Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of veterans
Impossible to maintain. Target for vanity articles. Far too many people to make a meaningful page. RickK 03:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.. it just seems like a bad idea to try to maintain these articles. --Stormie 03:47, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, if the titles are changed to "prominent people who are ________ veterans." -- Cecropia 03:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)~
- agreed, delete. Naming conventions are against use of the word "prominent". who's to decide what that means anyways? --Jiang 04:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- With great regret, delete. I would love to have these lists available as a resource somewhere. Unfortunately, in Wikipedia these articles would be impossible to verify or to protect from vandalism. Rossami 15:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? You could say that about any article. "It's too hard" has never been an excuse to avoid having a useful article here. Jgm 21:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- The "digits of Pi" articles were deleted because they were too hard to maintain or protect from vandalism. The same reasoning applies here. Most of our articles can be successfully maintained because we have a critical mass of informed reader/editors who know the content thoroughly and who can spot vandalism even in the details. The content is definitive and sourcable. I do not believe that these lists meet the test. Let's say you get the list of WW I veterans fully populated. Tomorrow, someone adds a name in the middle of the list and says "my uncle served". How can any future reader possibly know if the addition is true? Can even the person who created the list know if this entry represents an error in their source (government records are hardly infallible) or a fraudulent entry? The source data are scattered and incomplete which makes it functionally impossible to verify the entry. Frankly, even the definition of "veteran" is troublesome. Some countries consider you a veteran if you served in the armed forces during the time of the war. Others, only if you saw combat. Then add the problem of partisans and irregular combatants and it becomes impossible to verify the contents. It's not that these articles are unimportant or couldn't be verified by a scholar with enough time and resources, but that they are better answered somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Rossami 14:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, I am uncomfortable with the votes to "keep if we filter the list to 'notable' veterans" because of the difficulty defining who is 'notable' enough to be included. We still argue over whether individual 9/11 victims are 'notable' enough to have their own articles and we allow all victims to be listed in the 9/11 article. I'd rather not get into the same arguments here. Rossami
- Huh? You could say that about any article. "It's too hard" has never been an excuse to avoid having a useful article here. Jgm 21:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly reworded as "Notable . . ". Inclusion in such a list is by the same criteria as inclusion in the Wikipedia itself, and these would provide a useful reference and cross-reference. Jgm 21:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, with the titles amended to "Prominent", "Notable", or "Famous" MK 05:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have indicated on the pages that only people who already have biographical articles on Wikipedia will be listed, and only if their biographies indicate that they are indeed veterans of a particular conflict. If they don't fit that criteria, I will take their name off the list. If someone is a veteran but their biography does notmention this, then their article needs to be corrected first before being added to the list.I don't want a list of dead links and uncorroborated persons. While I am not going to decide which veterans are notable or not, I think there is a general consensus respecting which biographical articles rise to the standard of being "encyclopedic". I realise the inclusion of some people may still be open to dispute. For instance does Ronald Reagan's non-combat service in the Army Air Corps during wartime qualify him as a "World War II" veteran? Some people may argue strongly that he either is a World War II veteran or is not World War II veteran Syncrolecyne.
- Generally, the term "veteran" when applied to a war, means someone who served in the active military as a formal member of the armed forces. That would exclude civilians who did war work, if that was the nature of Reagan's service. Entertainers, even war reporters, are not considered war veterans. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Reagan was an enlisted member of the service, not a civilian; so that's not an issue. The membership requirements of the VFW, which might be more toward the issue at hand here, are as follows: VFW membership is available to all U.S. service members who have earned an overseas campaign or expeditionary medal and are currently on active duty, in the Reserves or who have been honorably discharged from the U.S. armed forces. The campaign or expeditionary medal might be the deciding factor being sought here. There's also the issue of whether someone killed in action is properly described as a "veteran"; I don't think the page's intent is to omit such individuals. MisfitToys 00:27, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- You can't take an expeditionary medal as operative. Service members who did not go overseeas are still veterans. "War veteran" (in the US) is defined as someone who served during certain specified periods of time, whether or not they were overseas. The difference is (among other things) benefits. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Reagan was an enlisted member of the service, not a civilian; so that's not an issue. The membership requirements of the VFW, which might be more toward the issue at hand here, are as follows: VFW membership is available to all U.S. service members who have earned an overseas campaign or expeditionary medal and are currently on active duty, in the Reserves or who have been honorably discharged from the U.S. armed forces. The campaign or expeditionary medal might be the deciding factor being sought here. There's also the issue of whether someone killed in action is properly described as a "veteran"; I don't think the page's intent is to omit such individuals. MisfitToys 00:27, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Generally, the term "veteran" when applied to a war, means someone who served in the active military as a formal member of the armed forces. That would exclude civilians who did war work, if that was the nature of Reagan's service. Entertainers, even war reporters, are not considered war veterans. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've changed the titles to include the word notable. Kingturtle 05:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, with use of the world prominent(or something similar). And what FM Jiang! Burgundavia 20:09, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- wikipedia:naming conventions. this vote does not have the authority to change existent policy--Jiang 00:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Is it feasible to do a bar at the bottom of the pages with WWI/WWII/Vietnam veterans? As is done for OECD, EU, NATO countries etc. There'd be no need for a seperate page. -- EuroTom 21:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- For WWI and WWII at least, these are kind of redundant with List of people associated with World War I and List of people associated with World War II, aren't they?
- It would probably be a good idea to keep people who were famous during the wars in the "List of people associated with..." page and have people who served but became famous in another area in the "List of notable ... veterans" page with a "see also" linking the two. Otherwise the veterans page will end up duplicating much of the associated page. MK 05:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)