Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Gardner

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 of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Gardner

Okay, an elderly gentelman, no claim of notability at all. Says that he is one of the last surviving veterans of WWI - except he never fought, in fact not even going to basic training (if he went at all) until after the armistice. No other info on this guy, and zero claim of actual notability, aside from his somewhat interesting story of dodging the bullet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughtful, well considered nom. However, as Gardner seems to be one of only 24 surviving US WW1 vets, based on our list, I have to vote weak Keep or merge info to Surviving veterans of World War I. -- JJay 08:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

He is already a link in that article, there are others who have no articles in WP. There is a news story here Endomion 08:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I read the article before voting. I think keep is the best option, but if not some of the details could be added to the list. -- JJay 08:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Last vet of the Great War in Pennsylvania. Had a newspaper spread and a local TV story done on him. Endomion 08:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've been in my hometown paper a bunch of times, and was even interviewed on radio once. Do I get a page? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you are as old as Gardner maybe. You might even get 10 minutes to edit the article, but make sure everything you submit is verifiable. -- JJay 14:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unwise comparison. You are not a veteran of the First World War. Xoloz 20:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notability is inherent. Article needs a source, however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I've added a couple of links to newspapers on him to establish verifiability. The story is somewhat interesting, I suppose. Flyboy Will 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep --Quarl 10:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, agree with Endomion. Bart Versieck 12:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Under United States law, anyone who served during wartime is a veteran. Apparently he swore in before the Armistice was signed. Thus he assumed the risks of being a soldier. Having gotten lucky about the timing doesn't make that oath less solemn. I'm a war veteran who served overseas and I support this. Durova 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It needed a little tidy up, which I have given it. Moriori 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, , if this guy were Canadian I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. -- MisterHand 05:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, at this point, all surviving WWI vets (under 100 left) are very notable. Xoloz 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I am with Durova on this, he got lucky but he was willing to take the risks... plus his story is noteable enough Orbframe 22:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The media interest denotes the notability, and if it doesn't come under any of our predefined categories of notable, then we should invent another one. David | Talk 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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.