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 was delete. WjBscribe 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Chart (height 150 to 174 cm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

BMI Chart (height 174 to 200 cm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BMI Chart (height 200 to 224 cm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource." See previous AfD. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: this page has already been through a "request for deletion" process and there was no overall majority, so it was kept - see the template on the discussion page. Please note the previous discussion. Keep the other two nominated tables for the same reasons. The information is relevant. Snowman 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, WP:CCC. Axem Titanium 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, consensus can change, but at the present time you have no evidence that the previous people who voted to keep these pages have changed their mind. At the relatively recent previous AfD the wikipedians who voted to keep this page included eminent members of wikiproject medicine (you only have to view their user pages to realise this) who help to maintain the medicine portal, and they may not know about this AfD request. I think that it would be polite and respectful if these key wikipedians were informed about this AfD at an early juncture, or perhaps by the administrators who make the final decision. Snowman 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The decision of the previous afd was not "Keep", it was "No Consensus" based on the fact that the many of the deletes said to post it on Wikisource. And even if it were a "vote", the "votes" were 10-6 in favor of deletion. Nevertheless, "Keep" was not the outcome. Smashville 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Textbook example of WP:NOT#INFO. --Hnsampat 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - As the previous deletion nomination established, this page does not meet the criteria for Wikisource. If that's the basis for the afd, then it has to remain a keep. Smashville 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the main basis for this afd is WP:NOT#INFO --דניאל - Dantheman531 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom in that case. Isn't this more suitable for the Body mass index page, anyway? Smashville 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The pages are all interlinked to the BMI page. Snowman 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of this, but there is already a chart on the main article. Being linked to another article isn't reason enough to keep an article. Also, the previous decision of "no consensus" was based upon the fact that the proposals were to send it to WikiSource. The result of that discussion should have no bearing in this discussion. Smashville 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In-the-round, I think that the previous decision to keep these pages is somewhat relevant, particularly as there were quite a lot of votes overall. Snowman 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There was no previous decision to "Keep". The result of the "AFD" was no consensus. And the majority of the "votes" - 10-6 were in favor of deletion. The only reason it was no consensus and not delete was that one of the first debaters proposed a move to Wikisource and many subsequent debaters reasoned "per" him. Smashville 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dantheman - not all information is worhty of a Wikipedia article. MarkBul 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was it kept after a previous AfD? Snowman 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you would read the previous AFD, you would see that the page was not deleted due to a no-consensus because a few people had said that their Delete reason was "per" another user who later changed his reasoning. Since it probably could have been overturned in Deletion Review due to that fact, the result was a "no consensus". Smashville 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate information, which is redundant to "BMI=weight/height^2", and also to the perfectly good graph that is included in the Body mass index article (the lack of a public domain graph was a factor in the last AfD) Iain99 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graph is not the same as a table. Snowman 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's not. A graph is a far more concise way of conveying the same information. Iain99 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the tables because I think that extrapolation can be more accurate using the tables than the graph. Someone said at the previous AfD that there are no other tables like these in the public domain. Snowman 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that it doesn't exist in the public domain is irrelevant. WP:USEFUL - just because something is useful doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. You're ignoring the fact that the page is nothing BUT a table. Smashville 21:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was pointed out on the previous AfD that there are some tables on the wiki. Snowman 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a pretty poor argument at the best of times. But in any case, Table of prime factors, which was the one referenced last time, is rather different; it's information which could not be equally well conveyed by a graph or a simple formula, and which cannot be quickly worked out by anybody with a calculator. This, on the other hand, is just a data-dump. Iain99 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nevertheless, I feel that wikiproject medicine and the wiki would be degraded without these tables. Some people may be good at language but not good with maths or a calculator. Snowman 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • People not being good at math is not a reason for a Wikipedia article. I repeat, Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. If someone wants to know their BMI, they are going to one of the thousands of BMI calculators online, no to an arbitrary metric based table buried within Wikipedia. Smashville 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The table can be printed out and shared. You are making assumptions about the availability of computers and calculators. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And you appear to be playing the part of Advocatus Diaboli. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No assumptions made. If they can access Wikipedia they have a computer. Therefore, they have access to the thousands of BMI Calculators located online. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. "It's useful because some people don't have computers" is not really a logical reason to publish something on a website. Smashville 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per what Wikipedia is not. Axem Titanium 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom - there's a chart in the main article now, which seems to fulfill the need just fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is a graph and I asked an eminent wikipedian to make that graph. Nevertheless, I think that the raw data, the tables, that form the graph are needed. The tables would be useful for accurate quick extrapolation by anyone who uses such data on an almost daily basis at work, or anyone using the data occasionally. Tables like these are used in hospitals. Snowman 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Wikipedia is not a reproduction of what exists on the web. These are just charts. Resolute 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are charts with a copyleft. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all the interesting info about the BMI is in the article - these appear to be someone showing off their perl scripting (see the talk) and don't really provide anything of value to an encyclopedia.--Peta 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included the perl script on the talk page to show that the charts were not copied and that their copyright was appropriate for the wiki. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki per "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource " in WP:NOT Corpx 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently Transwikiing not an option, as Wikisource doesn't want this sort of thing either. [1]. WP:NOT probably needs changing in this regard. Iain99 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do know much about wikisource or transwiki, but if the tables could have been moved they would have been moved after the previous AfD. The previous decision was not to delete the tables from the wiki-world. Snowman 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was not the result of the previous AfD...it was merely "No Consensus". Smashville 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, we don't need these charts when the article about Body Mass Index already contains the BMI formulas. JIP | Talk 10:05, 4 September 2007 (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.