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.
Keep — Encyclopedic: it's a limited list of people with an unusual stature. They have articles on WP, so presumably that means they satisfy the notability criteria. What's subjective about a person's height? The reference issue can be addressed, and the same issue can be applied to 97% of the other articles on WP. — RJH (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please define the objective criteria for inclusion. SuperMachine 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all, not the most useful of lists but I don't think it's really subjective. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the cut off point is subjective and certain professions that are height dependent make being tall or short not a notable characteristic: tall basketball players or supermodels, short jockeys, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Aside from the amount of work that me and others have put into the topic, you can read from the talk pages that myself and Halbared have recently decided upon policies wherby each height must be referenced and each submission must be notable, which would then put the article much closer to a good thing. As for subjective, I also don't understand how a person's height, once sourced, can be anything other than fact. I'm also unsure which part of WP:NOT you think the article violates. HamishMacBeth 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please define the objective criteria for inclusion. SuperMachine 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DelMerge — Taking 5'10" and 5'5" for average height (men/women) and applying a 3" avg. distr. we get: the 10 tallest men = 9th perc., the 13 shortest men = 9th perc., the 10 tallest women = 6th perc. [6 tallest = 9th perc.] and the 5 shortest women are only at the 5th percetile. The current cutoffs are only 2nd perctile which statistically means ~5% of the population. At least 6th percentile is equal to 1 in 500 million, or ~13 total on Earth. Thus, perhaps the four lists (Tall men/women + Short men/women) could individually deleted and then the information merged into one article - maybe something like "Human Height Extremes" - and then have the top 10 for each category in tabular format.Moridin 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cut-offs can be readily changed if the list grows too large. Men and women have different average heights, so a combined list would be skewed by gender. — RJH (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This list (despite being somewhat silly) is far better maintained and pruned for notability than other similar lists of people on wikipedia. Discussions about proper sources are frequent on the talk page, which is a good thing. Carlossuarez46's point, btw, has been taken into account by Halbared and others, who have done a great job of keeping the list from being overwhelmed with semi-notable basketball players and professional wrestlers.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These lists have possibly been done in a bit of a "freak show" manner which makes them appear silly, but as someone who is 41 inches(105 cm) tall I think there's potential value in them. I learned a good deal more about Spanish pianist Alicia de Larrocha, and helped improved her article, while looking for names to add to the women's list. There's no similar urge to delete List of people with visual disabilities or List of deaf people. That said the list would maybe look less silly if it took a cue from those two and was arranged by "levels" rather than specific heights as height can change with age.--T. Anthony 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I also created the article on actress Meredith Eaton when lookinf for names to add.--T. Anthony 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, are you going to list 90% of the NBA players here? Lazybum 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Kappa 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most NBA players aren't notable enought to fit. The rule of lists, from what I read back when, is also that the person contributed to the topic or is known for their connection to it. An NBA player of average height for the NBA I think could already be excluded using that rule. Likewise other things are up for deletion here. List of famous short men and List of famous short women is not affected by this comment. And before it's stated neither "short person" list is getting full of jockeys. In fact Willie Shoemaker is the only jockey I find on either list.(Admittedly that seems a bit odd as the cut-off on the male list is 5 ft 5)--T. Anthony 07:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the discussion page, and could not find an objective rule. This leads me to question the maintainability of this list. There has already been lots of edit confilcts centered on the "importance" of players. Sure, there are few people editing the list constantly, but what happens when they eventually burn out? Lazybum 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is the one that applies to all stand-alone lists. Their being tall has to be part of their fame or significance. According to one site[http://www.eurobasket.com/over210.asp he top Take Lock Martin, who I recently added, he'd likely just be a doorman if a director hadn't noticed he was very tall. Even Christopher Lee got some roles because of his heighth. That the more serious editors will "burn out" causing quality to decline is a risk in almost any article.
Delete unless completely restructured The extremes on each list are almost worthy of the lists themselves - they are people who are notable for being tall or short. However, as you get down the list (e.g., tall men) you start getting to people who are notable for things other than their height and just happen to be tall. That crosses over into triviality. I agree with Moridin's proposal as to how this topic might be saved, but as it stands, it's fairly arbitrary and worthless. GassyGuy 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Is a good list, Hammish, The Fat Man, myself and others are working on it to ensure it doesn't explode, to keep non-notable person off and to try and make the heights sourced.(Halbared 07:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong KEEP Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Famous" is undefined, the list potentially endless. Tall: for Asians being of above average height means someting else than for Europeans. If this list is really needed include only those who attained at least some of their fame because of the height, not everyone above X cm. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The height of a specific person is objective, but the inclusion on this list is completely subjective. If this article was about extremes, such as the tallest man/woman, that would be objective. A good portion of this article (especially at the bottom) seems to be famous people who also happen to be tall, instead who people who are famous solely because of their height. SuperMachine 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those that assert that this article is objective, please provide objective criteria for whom may be included. This criteria should leave zero room for arguments about whether a person should or should not be included in the article. For example, it should unambigously define why Djimon Hounsou (whose height of 6'4" isn't even mentioned in his article) should be included, while Bill Russell (at 6'9") should not. SuperMachine 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)-"Selection criteria-If this person/thing/etc. wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" An actor who is say 6 ft 4 could be partly famous for playing "tall guy" roles. Being 6 ft 4 to 6 ft 8 is less significant in basketball as its more normal. Still the examples you give might be valid, in which case you take Hounsou off and possibly put Russell in.--T. Anthony 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: According to one basketball site[1] the tallest 50 basketball players in the world are all 221 cm or taller. Hence a basketball player much below that can likely be said to have fame unrelated to height.--T. Anthony 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the criteria to sort famous people who are tall from people famous for their height can be sorted, otherwise it seems an objective series of lists.--Golden Wattle talk 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see an obvious consensus. Somewhere a line must be drawn, in terms of permutations with famous people. User:Yy-bo 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CFIF☎⋐ 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is interesting (I had no idea Osama bin Laden was so tall.) But for goodness sake let's have the proper international units before the medieval ones! --Guinnog 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I take it somebody has read WP:NOT. Lost Knob 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Did you read this part "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." Billy Barty didn't significantly contribute to discussions of dwarfism or short people? Robert Pershing Wadlow has an article for reasons totally unrelated to his being tall?--T. Anthony 15:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These lists are subjective. What's tall? What's short? What's famous? Every person has a particular sense of it, it's impossible to find an overall conclusion. Krysie Flare 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's deaf? How hearing impaired must you be to count? Who's Native American? How much ancestry do you need to declare it. Yet we have List of deaf people and List of Native Americans. (That said "famous" is supposed to be dropped in list titles, a rename to "noted" might be in order)--T. Anthony 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I still find this article encyclopedic, important (as a collection of one kind of trivia info and famous people that can belong to it) and, as mentioned above, interesting. And as in other of the kind "list of famous tall/short" articles, it is important to show poeple with unusual height (tall or short) that their height really doesnt matter that much to achieve their goals. They simply show them poeple they can relate to. BTW, it is a good point, that tall basketball players are nothing special, thus only very tall basket players should be contained in the article. --Dudo2 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm not on this list for being 7 feet tall, but these tall guys of whatever (unknown for 99% of the world) are there just for being even shorter than me. Smells bad. Dark thief of 7 feet 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. The title is famous tall men, of which you are obvisusly not one. And again, as you'll see from the talk page, non notable people and the majority of basketball players are being weeded out, or at least trying to be. HamishMacBeth 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The height qualification has been moved up before it can again. That said you wouldn't be on this list because, no offense, you aren't notable. Just like I wouldn't belong on the List of famous short men even though only eight of those guys are shorter than me.--T. Anthony 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take the troll of 7 feet seriously, he's just goofing around. I suggest taking a look at his past contributions before responding to him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an ironic complaint just to show how bad this list is handled. Yeah, don't take it seriously... It may hurt the weakest brains. Dark thief of 7 feet 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Famous by whose standards? —Encephalon 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's by the standards of common sense. For example, John Cleese is tall and known to pretty much everybody who's ever watched television. Kevin Durand is tall, but you'd have a damn hard time explaining him as famous.BertieBasset 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take a different position because I think the word "famous" should be removed or replaced with "noted" from the lists if they survive. People add famous as a justification, but Wikipedia's list guidelines are against having the word "famous" in lists. Anyway these lists should be for people whose height is an important or defining part of their public identity or notability. If it's limited to that I don't see how it'd be failiing list guidelines.--T. Anthony 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective and inaccurate. --J.K. Terenci 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a list that provides encyclopedic information, and the person that nominated this for deletion was a wikipedia members for about two and a half weeks Seeing as how these articles have been around for a long time, why would it be deleted now? They need to be heavily edited for accuracy, and by no means should be deleted from wikipedia. Capsgm2002 20:23, 12 September 2006 (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.
