Deletion of Surviving veterans of World War I

Comment: The nominator's humble opinion notwithstanding, this is an overwhelmingly sourced article, and I'm at a loss to determine the reasoning in declaring the contrary.  It certainly does ''not'' "define its own subject," as the article blatantly cites the various (and contradictory) national regulations defining "World War I-era veteran."  The nom further makes the common error of presuming that compiling info from multiple sources constitutes |original research, when in fact drawing a ''synthesis'' from such facts is the violation.  As far as the lack of similar lists go, quite aside from the absurdity of maintaining the same (are there as few as a million surviving WWII vets worldwide?), that's rather like saying an article on a particular movie isn't allowable just because there isn't one yet on a similar work.  The nom ''is'' correct, though, in that the article requires constant monitoring.  With over '''twelve hundred''' edits this year alone, it's obvious that many editors are quite happy to provide just that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)