534:- Personally I agree that individual films/programmes shouldn't be on the list, although I can see the case where someone may want to know who "the last surviving leading man of 1930s Hollywood" for example, or indeed, who the last silent film actor was, or who the last Keystone Kop/Our Gang member was. But individual films/programmes? I wouldn't mind losing them from the list and in fact would happily wipe them. Essentially, I think that regardless of aspects of the content, the spirit of the article is in scope, and with proper criteria (something that is also needed for the Historical Survivors equivalent) set in place, it would be valid. I especially feel that the artists section would survive AFD if it wasn't lumped in with the other stuff.
775:
fascinating. I know I'm not the only one fascinated to know who the last person standing was, so I think I'll keep that on my userspace. Incidentally, there is still a lot of non-war related stuff on the
Historical Events list, including last native speakers/last members of a race/community/etc, should that be taken out too and if so, is it a valid article subject or equally non-enyclopaedic? (This discussion probably should be moved elsewhere, so pls do advise.)
758:" - theoretically, any group of people with an article on Knowledge is significant. There could be a case for it to be split up (e.g. "List of last survivors of artistic movements") but equally some would question the notability of listing individuals who happened to live longer than their colleagues. The existing war-related lists are fundamentally different as soldiers in battle are expected to have a diminished lifespan.
365:
it has been added by me. Personally, I don't see the need for a lot of what's on the list right now (Employees/classmates - seriously?) but I know I would find it useful to know for example who the last surviving members of literary/art movements or groups were without trawling through the article on that movement/group and looking at all the artists's death dates to work out who died last.
570:- Completely agree. Which one is the rescue mission, BTW? As I said, I don't know anything about sports. I just moved everything from the Historical events list that wasn't a historical event or appeared not to be. Perhaps I should have sought more feedback/assessment and edited it more fully and developed the criteria. before creating the article itself, but I decided to be
364:
To be fair, the list is currently a simple transfer of information from one page to another. Any indiscrimination is due to the information that was gradually added into the
Historical events list, building up to a substantial volume of bumph, without its being immediately removed/challenged. None of
704:
Before you urge others to "discard" votes you disagree with, I think you should probably read up on the status of essays such as the one you have just cited. That's right...they have none! Isn't it funny how editors are very knowledgeable about exactly which shortcut to use to quote such essays and
774:
Fair enough, thanks. I was thinking that about splitting it up too. You do keep seeing people described as the "last of their type" - I remember an obituary of the Queen Mother saying that at her death, she was the last living main player in the Edward VIII abdication scandal, which I thought was
386:
and remove a lot of the names/films/events I didn't think had reason to be on there (e.g. "What
Happened Last Night?" did not show film history notability, whilst obviously Casablanca/The Phantom of the Opera/The Great Train Robbery do). I am not touching Sports with a bargepole as I know nothing
425:
I can see a case for art/literary movements etc - the last known surrealist, etc. Certainly that is something I would find incredibly useful, and have added three such instances to the Arts section as an example. (sorry, slipped on keyboard and submitted this prematurely).
52:. On the face of it, a clear 'delete' consensus, but looking at the 'keep's, there was nothing there which was accepted by the 'delete' contingent. Citing another article that should be deleted if this one is deleted is not useful; the consensus is that this
401:
I don't doubt your good intentions and the list is certainly well-ordered and comprehensive. My reason for calling the AFD is that I do not believe that the article could ever be anything other than a collection of tenuously-connected trivia.
186:
453:- Just a mishmash of indiscriminate trivia, ranging from Hypatia to Betty White. A notable factoid on their individual bios perhaps, but in reading down the list one entry has little to do do with the next, even within the same category.
387:
about it (but I'd think ought to list things like the last surviving medal winner from landmark
Olympics (say the first Games of 1896, the 1936 Berlin Olympics etc.). Similarly, I haven't touched Music due to not knowing enough about it.
217:
List based on vague trivial intersections of characteristics with no clear inclusion criteria. A "cultural event" is not defined and at present includes assorted films, sporting events, employment status and meeting celebrities. Violates
56:
an indiscriminate list, so the argument that it is not was against consensus. Further discussion could take place on the talk page of the userfied version - for a potential return to mainspace should a consensus on that ever be reached
551:. The trouble is everything from being a teammate of Babe Ruth's to participating in a rescue mission (what's that doing in sports BTW?) to being part of a band or art movement is included. What exactly constitutes a "cultural event"?
657:
Why do you feel the inclusion criteria is not indiscriminate given that it's basically "X with characteristic Y associated with 1, 2, 3, to infinity"? As far as it being encyclopaedic, I would say the opposite - it's a violation of
578:
that if the article is deleted, the current text be moved back to my userspace as I think there's solid material in there among the "mish mash" stuff that could form the basis of something more useful.
114:
109:
180:
118:
101:
488:
267:
146:
317:
141:
245:
105:
289:
514:
313:
201:
168:
97:
89:
470:
per nom. The criterion is way too murky and broad. Just in films alone, we'd have to include every significant one that's old enough. No thanks.
851:
814:
784:
769:
745:
718:
699:
681:
648:
631:
606:
588:
560:
543:
526:
502:
479:
462:
435:
420:
396:
374:
352:
329:
303:
281:
259:
237:
83:
831:
733:
162:
808:
158:
77:
208:
17:
517:
should be too, if it's policies we are following rather than our feelings about the polish and/or seriousness of the article.
834:. I am not sure how this could be good, when all is done, for our core readership - students. It's dangerously close to
174:
736:(alternative edit) any more acceptable? The title is obviously incorrect, but I've tried to clarify criteria, etc.
870:
40:
340:
803:
639:. Useful, encyclopaedic list. Not indiscriminate. Needs expansion, but no reason whatsoever to delete. --
602:
594:
556:
475:
71:
866:
36:
714:
644:
687:
403:
194:
798:
513:
This article is well within WP standards, if not its (ideal) policies. If this is deleted then
847:
827:
598:
552:
498:
471:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
865:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
316:
list. Much of what is on there has been transferred from that list following a discussion on
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
780:
741:
584:
539:
522:
431:
392:
370:
348:
325:
219:
839:
835:
759:
710:
671:
659:
640:
410:
293:
271:
249:
227:
409:
just an opinion piece, but I would say that points 3, 6, 8 and 10 apply to this article.
823:
695:
627:
571:
458:
383:
843:
667:
494:
135:
574:
and create it. Yes, it's a mish mash, but I don't think that's my fault. I would
776:
737:
580:
535:
518:
427:
388:
366:
344:
321:
691:
623:
454:
796:
Far too broad of a criteria for inclusion for a concise article to emerge.
705:
much less knowledgeable about their status vis-a-vis
Knowledge policy! My
842:. I'd love to see a detailed closing statement from a sibling admin.
666:
encyclopaedic) because it uses verifiable information to create an
226:"). Information can be true and notable yet unsuited to grouping.
859:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
320:
and has remained on there unchallenged for quite a long time.
754:
I'd say my nomination rationale would still apply. Example: "
131:
127:
123:
832:
User:Mabalu/List of last survivors of cultural events2
734:
User:Mabalu/List of last survivors of cultural events2
193:
756:
last surviving member of significant groups of people
489:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
268:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
312:I created this article to lighten the load on the
224:Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
873:). No further edits should be made to this page.
622:- This is essentially a mish mash of trivia. --
318:Talk:List of last survivors of historical events
822:- I am compelled into following the logic that
709:(for such it is, just like yours) stands. --
207:
8:
824:this list has too wide an inclusion criteria
487:Note: This debate has been included in the
382:- On that note, I decided to further follow
288:Note: This debate has been included in the
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:list of History-related deletion discussions
244:Note: This debate has been included in the
515:List of last survivors of historical events
314:List of last survivors of historical events
290:list of Events-related deletion discussions
486:
287:
265:
243:
98:List of last survivors of cultural events
90:List of last survivors of cultural events
670:connection between unrelated subjects.
343:, of which this is a perfect example.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
662:(therefore, the definition of
1:
890:
826:, but I can also see how
862:Please do not modify it.
852:19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
830:with something close to
815:19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
785:15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
770:15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
746:11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
719:14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
700:13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
682:10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
649:10:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
632:17:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
607:09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
589:21:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
561:06:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
544:23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
527:23:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
503:20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
480:20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
463:20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
436:12:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
421:12:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
397:11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
375:10:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
353:10:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
330:09:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
304:08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
282:08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
260:08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
238:08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
84:01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
595:1925 serum run to Nome
836:doing their research
404:WP:LISTCRUFT#Meaning
828:this could be fixed
763:
675:
593:That would be the
414:
297:
275:
253:
231:
48:The result was
840:high school essay
761:
673:
505:
492:
412:
341:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
306:
295:
284:
273:
262:
251:
229:
881:
864:
811:
806:
801:
767:
764:
690:vote. Discard.
679:
676:
493:
418:
415:
301:
298:
279:
276:
257:
254:
235:
232:
212:
211:
197:
149:
139:
121:
80:
74:
66:
63:
34:
889:
888:
884:
883:
882:
880:
879:
878:
877:
871:deletion review
860:
809:
804:
799:
765:
760:
677:
672:
568:Comment/request
416:
411:
299:
294:
277:
272:
255:
250:
233:
228:
154:
145:
112:
96:
93:
78:
72:
64:
61:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
887:
885:
876:
875:
855:
854:
817:
790:
789:
788:
787:
772:
749:
748:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
684:
652:
651:
634:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
529:
507:
506:
483:
482:
465:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
356:
355:
333:
332:
307:
285:
263:
215:
214:
151:
92:
87:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
886:
874:
872:
868:
863:
857:
856:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
816:
813:
812:
807:
802:
795:
792:
791:
786:
782:
778:
773:
771:
768:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
727:
720:
716:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
683:
680:
669:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
490:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
437:
433:
429:
424:
423:
422:
419:
408:
405:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
363:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
305:
302:
291:
286:
283:
280:
269:
264:
261:
258:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
225:
221:
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
91:
88:
86:
85:
81:
75:
69:
68:
67:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
861:
858:
819:
797:
793:
755:
729:
706:
688:WP:ITSUSEFUL
663:
636:
619:
599:Clarityfiend
575:
567:
553:Clarityfiend
548:
531:
510:
472:Clarityfiend
467:
450:
406:
379:
361:
336:
309:
223:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
59:
58:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
181:free images
711:Necrothesp
641:Necrothesp
867:talk page
838:for that
495:• Gene93k
380:Follow-up
220:WP:NOTDIR
37:talk page
869:or in a
668:original
660:WP:SYNTH
142:View log
79:contribs
39:or in a
844:Bearian
820:Comment
730:Enquiry
707:opinion
686:Just a
576:request
572:WP:BOLD
549:Comment
532:Comment
384:WP:BOLD
362:Comment
310:Comment
187:WP refs
175:scholar
115:protect
110:history
62:Phantom
794:Delete
777:Mabalu
762:ŞůṜīΣĻ
738:Mabalu
674:ŞůṜīΣĻ
620:Delete
581:Mabalu
536:Mabalu
519:Borock
468:Delete
451:Delete
428:Mabalu
413:ŞůṜīΣĻ
389:Mabalu
367:Mabalu
345:Nick-D
337:Delete
322:Mabalu
296:ŞůṜīΣĻ
274:ŞůṜīΣĻ
252:ŞůṜīΣĻ
230:ŞůṜīΣĻ
159:Google
119:delete
50:delete
810:Space
732:: Is
202:JSTOR
163:books
147:Stats
136:views
128:watch
124:links
65:Steve
16:<
848:talk
805:From
800:Them
781:talk
766:¹98¹
742:talk
715:talk
696:talk
692:Tarc
678:¹98¹
645:talk
637:Keep
628:talk
624:Whpq
603:talk
585:talk
557:talk
540:talk
523:talk
511:Keep
499:talk
476:talk
459:talk
455:Tarc
432:talk
417:¹98¹
393:talk
371:talk
349:talk
339:per
326:talk
300:¹98¹
278:¹98¹
256:¹98¹
234:¹98¹
195:FENS
169:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
73:talk
209:TWL
144:•
140:– (
850:)
783:)
744:)
717:)
698:)
664:un
647:)
630:)
605:)
597:.
587:)
559:)
542:)
525:)
501:)
491:.
478:)
461:)
434:)
407:is
395:)
373:)
351:)
328:)
292:.
270:.
248:.
222:("
189:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
82:\
54:is
846:(
779:(
740:(
713:(
694:(
643:(
626:(
601:(
583:(
555:(
538:(
521:(
497:(
474:(
457:(
430:(
391:(
369:(
347:(
324:(
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
138:)
100:(
76:|
70:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.