Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate wasdelete. Joyous 20:13, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)
Yet again another in the never-ending celebrity height articles, with yet again another format in its title. RickK 00:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I didn't even get around to posting this before it was recommended for deletion. Methinks that speaks volumes about the sad-sacks who appear to have some incomprehensible vendetta against my Height Project. In any case, I vote Keep! And if something isn't up your alley, perhaps go off and find a page that is. Getalis 00:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  00:20, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vendetta? Vendetta means some form of revenge. Nope, a lot of us here have the idea that some things belong in encyclopedias, some don't, and articles categorizing people by height aren't in the least bit encyclopedic, IMNSHO. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 00:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The same as for the others: Merge to a single List of people over 2m tall article, or Delete. Uncle G 01:06, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * In the event that a request for deletion goes up before the actual page itself, one realizes that those requesting said premature deletion are, in fact, just out to break balls. This has nothing to do with legitimacy. You're either uninterested in the topic or upset that you didn't think of it first. Either way, it isn't grounds for deletion. Getalis 01:37, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is to compare the create dates on the article and this page and you will be assured that your article was up BEFORE I created this page. I added the vfd header to your article and then clicked on the page link there which led me to edit this page.  Now I will appreciate an apology for your unfounded accusation.  RickK 22:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe off in electronic la-la land. But in the real world, when I first clicked "save" on my initial write-up, it didn't take. So I back-clicked and saved again. This time it took, and the page displayed itself...with your ridiculous Vfd tag already upon it. Now I will appreciate an apology for forcing me to (once again) set you straight on things. Getalis 01:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The evidence is clear for all to see. You will not apologize even when you're wrong.  I will now ignore your constant ranting and foaming at the mouth until you learn how to behave in a civilized manner.  RickK 01:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are occasionally weird little system bugs where the page does save properly, but the creator gets an error page incorrectly suggesting that it didn't. It doesn't mean anybody's out to bust your balls; it's a database problem. It's happened to me quite a few times in the past few weeks; I need only click on "my contributions" to see that the page did save properly. In this case, the page history does confirm that you created the page first. It's not even possible to put a VfD tag on a page that doesn't exist yet, dude. Had it happened as you claim, your second save would have erased the VfD tag. Bearcat 03:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. And being short about it isn't going to get you keep votes if it's not notable. --Woohookitty 01:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. --LeeHunter 01:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You write 'em, I delete 'em. --RoySmith 01:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)  (PS, an edit conflict in a VfD!) (Wow, a double edit conflict)
 * Delete, see previous comments on Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Hoary 03:59, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely harmless. Philip 10:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all similar pages, which are non-encyclopedic, and inherently US-centric because of the use of feet-and-inch measurements in the titles (which leave out intermediate heights in between). Martg76 03:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them. HowardB 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all of them. Although not really notable, we do have entries for every date in the year, and for every year. Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )
 * Delete all of them. Far too trivial (what next? list of people by weight? shoe size? hair colour? waist measurement? cup size?). Extreme heights are notable, but 6' 1" isn't. sjorford// 22:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I know - let's make articles categorising men by their penis length, and women by breast size as well - how relevant!!!! DELETE Selphie 11:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) **
 * Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 20:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)