Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by height order

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge & redirect. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by height order

[edit]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Worthless trivia. Soltak | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the above rationales are entirely subjective, and have no basis in policy. For a basis in policy consider verifiability and original research: The heights of the Presidents of the United States are verifiable from books such as Joseph Nathan Kane; Steven Anzovin; Janet Podell (2001). Facts About the Presidents. Hw Wilson Co. ISBN 0824210077. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), which gives a list of the various physical characteristics (height, weight, hair colour, &c.) of all U.S. Presidents on pages 600 et seq.. It is not original research to collect and arrange the Presidents of the United States by height, since that has been the subject of research such as Paul M. Sommers (January 2002). "Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?". The College Mathematics Journal. 33 (1): 14–16. doi:10.2307/1558973. and Michael A. Day (2001-09-26). "The Presidents by Height and BMI". U. S. Presidents Homework Help.. There is no basis in policy for deleting this article. Keep. Uncle G 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unencyclopedic" is certainly a basis in policy for deleting an article out of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is definitely a basis in policy. Otto4711 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unencyclopaedic" merely asserts that you believe that there is a basis in policy, without saying what that basis actually is. It is not a basis in policy itself. And "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. It is not a catch-all excuse for things that you personally think to be "trivial" and "worthless". Uncle G 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you know, I'm trying to find a nice way to say "this article is a pile of shit" and "trivia" is the best I've come up with. If there is not a specific document here that says "articles in an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic" then perhaps there should be, but to my mind it kinda goes without saying that an encyclopedia article should be encyclopedic and if it's not encyclopedic it has no place here. As for WP:NOT, I've read it, thanks. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" seems like a pretty clear endorsement that things that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia should be deleted. So to sum up, this article is a pile of shit that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...in other words, a list of presidents arranged by order of height is unencyclopedic, trivial and indiscriminate. If having the heights of presidents outside of their own articles is by some stretch of the imagination a worthwhile topic, then List of heights of United States presidential candidates does it much better by actually including the heights of the presidents and their opponents and sourcing the information and the discussion of the "the taller guy wins" meme. Which not only makes this article useless shit but redundant useless shit. Otto4711 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your argument is entirely circular, and without any foundation in policy. According to your argument, the article doesn't belong because it is "unencyclopaedic", but your only definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "I personally think that it's a pile of shit that doesn't belong here.". Wikipedia doesn't employ that as a deletion criterion, for obvious reasons. The correct definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "not in accordance with all of our content policies". You have failed to reference a single one that supports the deletion of this article. (Whereas, in contrast, it can be shown that the content is both verifiable and not original research.) You've quoted one sentence that isn't by itself a reason for deletion, since the very next sentence, which you didn't quote, explains that the actual policy is the list that follows. Once again: Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, and interesting. Good almanac entry. Lists are almanac entries not encyclopedia entries. They just need to be verefiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G's rationale. If there are academic articles (with the caveat that I think such comparisons are about as dubious as the skull measuring of bygone days) on the topic I think notability is established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates. If this article was ever to be completed, a lot of information would be duplicated, and keeping both articles together would also eliminate the existing problem we have now; namely, each article has slightly different heights for some presidents. It should also be noted that 'Homework Help' is not a reliable source for presidential information (it says so on its homepage).--Nydas(Talk) 14:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, as per Uncle G. Terence Ong 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uncle G. Also, the article does make a point about the Presidential height increasing over time so it's not redundant information to the presidential candidates height article which makes a different point. --Canley 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic trivia. If kept, this would set a precedent for all List of <X> by <physical attributes>, X could be celebrities, sportsmen, serial killers, etc. Height is relevant for basketball players, high-jump athletics, etc., but not for most occupations. Verifiable, but this should be outside the scope of wikipedia. --Vsion 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, for obvious reasons, and deleting a verifiable, not original research, article X solely because it might "set a precedent" for article Y is an ill-founded idea. Articles don't set precedents for other articles. Our content and article policies determine what we include. This is an encyclopaedia, not a court. That this list is verifiable and not original research does not imply that "all Lists of <X> by <physical attributes>, X" are verifiable and not original research. Each individual such list must be treated on its merits and with regard to what sources are available and how they treat the subject. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I disagree with Uncle G, who implies that the list of examples of what is an indiscriminate collection of information is exhaustive. This should not be an encyclopedia article, but rather the result to a relational database query. -- Alan McBeth 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- Ordinarily I would say this is silly, but given the various discussions that always erupt around election time about how height is a statistically significant factor in voter preference, it might be arguably useful. --lquilter 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Referenced info, and interesting, especially in relation to the question of whether voters tend to favor taller candidates for President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates This appears to be redundant with that article. Seems best to merge the two. Dugwiki 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This info is now redundant, since I made the table at List of heights of United States presidential candidates sortable by height, so this page is no longer necessary. There are a couple bits of info that should still be merged over, such as the graph, before deletion however. VegaDark 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged The article has been merged and redirected to List of heights of U.S. presidential candidates Jjmillerhistorian 16:06, 19 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_height_order&oldid=1086075119"