Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall women

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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tall people[edit]

Nominating lists relating to famous tall people as unencyclopedic. Totally irrelevant personal characteristic. See also AfD for famous short people above. WJBscribe 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of famous tall men has been included in AfD twice before. The result of the first AfD in October 2005 which reached NO CONCENSUS. The second AfD in September 2006 also reached NO CONCENSUS. I felt it should be nominated again however, as other similar lists are being considered. WJBscribe 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. WJBscribe 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and verifiable. Tighten parameters so that not "famous" but list it under a new name. Its a just a list of people in Wikipedia sorted by height with a cutoff. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of famous short people and hope they cancel each other out somehow. Failing that, delete unless it can somehow be de-POVved and de-ORed to make it worthwhile. Famous is subjective, tall is subjective... as this list stands at the moment, it needs significan work to really be saveable. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change 'famous' to 'notable'. A useful list. Edit to emove all unverified names. Lists are now accepted in Wikipedia, so long as all items are verifiable. Curtains99 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may be missing something but I have difficulty seeing how such lists are useful. If they were lists of people who became famous substantially because they were tall (or were the first tall person to achieve something etc) there might be a purpose to the list. But these lists have simply chosen a random physical characteristic and could as easily have been lists of famous (or notable) people with blue eyes or raid hair... WJBscribe 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their tallness really should be significant to their fame or notability. People like Lock Martin certainly fit a list like this, others maybe not so much. Still I think it can be fixed to limit to those who are largely known for being tall so keep.--T. Anthony 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree, I question the notability of this list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information // Laughing Man 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Same reasons given for the short people article. And rename to remove POV judgement in the title. 23skidoo 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I may be missing something, but why in the world would we care about people's height? And how do you make the cutoff point not entirely arbitrary? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one list, list is encyclopedic and such lists interest people. If there are sources cited and they are notable then its fine. As long as they are maintained all the time. This is one of the lists that deserves to be kept on Wikipedia. Anyone recognised is considered notable, maybe a merge plus a rename to "List of notable tall people". Ter e nc e Ong 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ooo ooo I'm 6'9" can I be on the list? This list can never be completed. Whisp e ring 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I voted keep last time as I thought it was an interesting pair of lists. I think I have changed my mind now though. The ugly feet-and-inches the article is built around seals it for me; it would still be faintly unencyclopedic in modern units, but at least it wouldn't look so bad. --Guinnog 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as kind of petty. Metric can be put as the main measurement, Imperial units are because some of these people lived in the US or nineteenth century Britain.--T. Anthony 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sorry to seem petty. I want to make the point though that if these articles survive the AfD process, they must be put into modern units. --Guinnog 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki has too many pointless lists Soon we will have a list of middleish heigh people who have worn green jumpers on Wednesday (Gnevin 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom and Gnevin // Laughing Man 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - Interesting lists, entries on the men page are sourced to a point. If that was finished and if the same was applied to the women, you'd have two perfectly acceptable articles. I don't think the merge would work because then the list would be huge. SteveLamacq43 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - my only real quarrel is what counts as a tall man, or a tall woman?--Folksong 12:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject of study. Re-sort lists by centimeters, as per the international metric system, but put imperial measurements in parentheses. - Gilgamesh 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons in the last AFD and as is clear from the history of the List of famous tall men, I've put a lot of work into finding sources for the heights after the last AFD. As I'm pretty much doing it on my own, and have other things in my life, it's taking a while. HamishMacBeth 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my above comment, I agree with the reasons given for Rename as well. HamishMacBeth 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restrict to people about 7 ft and over. Anything more will be too big a list to maintain accurately. If people want to know the height of a specific celeb, they can go to that article. The only people who should be in an article like this are those who are notable at least in part because of their height. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Djcastel 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informative, and as long as citations continue to be added, wholly encyclopeadic. DavyJonesLocker 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrenDJ 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - title is not well defined as "tall" can mean "more than three inches taller than the reader"; by this definition, some Wikipedia readers would view Mickey Rooney as a "tall" man. WAIT!, there is already a List of notable giants in which the minimum height for inclusion is 7' 6". Therefore merge both to Gigantism#List of notable giants. B.Wind 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a category called "Notable tall people". Even though this is a good reference when wanting to find the tallest people of a certain background, other than that, it is of no use. For the actual articles themselves, I say Weak Keep. --Lakeyboy 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing at all wrong with list of famous people and physical attributes. Especially if it's such a notable characteristic as height. -- Freemarket 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is encyclopedic. List fits in fine with extreme physical characteristics of human people. 6ft 4 is a fine starting point
Keep/Rename - drop "famous", since only notable people would be allowed on the list anyways. Keep for the same reasons presented in the discussion on the lists of short people. The Transhumanist 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - restrict to women above 180cm (5ft 11in) -- Koblizek 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep+Rename, but I'd like the size limits to be a little stricter, such as 5'11 or 6'0 for women and 6'6 for men. --Wizardman 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very interesting --Ysangkok 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trivial but harmless, with info of potential use or interst to some people. Agree "famous" should be dropped from article title. -- Infrogmation 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - DXRAW 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for that? HamishMacBeth 13:40, 10 December 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.