Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix M. Witkoski

Felix M. Witkoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"There is no evidence to document his service, and his subsequent, arbitrary backdating of his birth fits the mold of deliberate fabrication." False claimant for "last surviving" (not oldest) Confederate veteran, apparently covered by one (1) two-page source. 2/3 of the article recounts things he claimed to have done but actually didn't (as demonstrated by the OR which comprises the other 1/3 of the article). EEng (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really convinced that his apparently false claim to be a civil war veteran is, in and of itself, a reason to delete. On this, I see a few references in books to his claims and discussion of whether they can be true. Given that he died such a long time ago, I would think someone would have to look offline for better sources to determine whether he is really notable. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans - the fact he claimed to be the last surviving veteran and was, for a time, feted as such is relevant to the topic, however I don't think he quite rises to the level for an individual article, given that his claim was false and it (seemingly) didn't become a celebrated fraud. However in the main article on the subject it's well worth mentioning and a redirect there is appropriate (and, if content is merged, required). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per The Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (with redirect, of course) per The Bushranger's rationale above. Although I am tempted to advocate deleting the article entirely, I believe a brief discussion of the subject at the article would be illustrative of the cottage industry that grew up around such "last Confederate" frauds, as well as the odd tradition of surviving "Confederate widows" who sometimes married much older men (often for their pensions) and some of whom lived well into the 20th Century. (Yes, I am a Southern homey, y'all.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans. Seems notable enough for a mention at that page, but unless someone can provide better coverage, I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article here. Canadian Paul 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans for reasons indicated above. I think that a merge in this case would benefit both articles: it creates a synergy and mutually provides context. I've added three two sources. But even as a Civil War impostor, and assuming he did live to be a Supercentenarian (old for a male) he is marginal as a stand alone article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.