Deletion of List of last surviving veterans of military engagements

Comment: per ; this is basically a gigantic |synthesis of a bunch of unrelated events, which is absolutely not what Wikipedia lists are for. It's not an actual topic that reliable sources cover, it's throwing together disparate sources to form a hodgepodge. "Military engagements" isn't even remotely well-defined either, having an entry here on the Beer Hall Putsch says about all that needs to be said on that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: It does not fail any policy set forth by .   As long as as it well sourced,   it is no different than the List of last survivors of historical events.   I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: as it is a reasonable fork. Also  doesn´t apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as meeting  and as a reasonable fork of List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. LISTN, which is cited by the nom, is not the be all and end all of whether to keep or delete lists. Nevertheless, there is https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/06/mystery-waterloos-last-living-soldier definitely https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-last-survivors-of-trafalgar-838ffvmc3g2 sourcing discussing the last survivors of individual battles. LISTN requires that the list topic (not the individual members together) "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic has, so the list should be kept. Of course, we could have hundreds of lists along the line of List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Trafalgar or List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Waterloo, but I think that this catch-all list is preferable. Regardless, LISTN acknowleges that '''Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability'''. This is one such list. A reader or researcher would be done a disservice if this list were removed as, from LISTPURP "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." I do agree that the scope of the list does need to be refined, though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP)