Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the heaviest people (2nd nomination)

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 Keep (non-admin closure), as there is nothing puny about this article's claim to notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the heaviest people[edit]

Arbitrary list which has no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all of these people even have their own article. This list is a way of organising and navigating the wiki. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reinoutr. How is this arbitrary? Even I, a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, find nothing wrong with this. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Despite the pitfall of WP:USEFUL, I'd say this is still a pretty useful list and don't find it arbitrary in the least; this is a good way of collecting those related biogs together. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you'd be able to navigate between them. If all the references were redlinks then there might be cause to doubt inclusion, but this is a well-sourced, informative collection. one brave monkey 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impossible to call it "arbitrary". Guiness Book o' World records prints up this list, for instance, so it's easy enough to source and show notability. Wily D 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List standards mandate that lists have well-defined criteria for inclusion, that they be neutral in their subject matter, and that they not be obscure minglings of two ideas — no "List of people named Henry Bakersfield who have eaten ten eggs in two seconds", for example. While the people on this list might be unhappy that they are so heavy, the listing is neutral anyway; the criteria are quite obvious, and it's not at all a ridiculous merging of topics. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Renoutr. —BlackTerror (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this list any different than any other lists in Wikipedia? I believe there is a list of the North America's tallest structures, where I also believe that a television tower is included in that list. What makes that television tower notable above all the other television towers? It's height does, just like these people's weight makes them notable in the same perspective. I guess the one difference is that a person may lose weight and no longer be notable, but then towers and buildings collapse and are taken down, so they too can be removed from lists. However, those structures are generally footnoted in those lists (i.e. World Trade Centers) because their removal from those lists usually occur because of a notable event. Then too, those who have made this list and for some reason or another no longer meet the criteria to be included here, would have almost had a notable event happen in their lives such as extreme weight loss or death due to severe obesity related complications, both events that normally don't happen to the average individual. Is this a case of disgust because this list contains the names of morbidly obese individuals? 67.224.23.92 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) anonymous[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.