Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 ft 2 in (1.88 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 20:15, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

6' 2"
This should be listed here for consistency with 6'4" and 6 ft 3 in. For me, it's just not notable enough a height - far too many people are 6' 2" for this list to be useful. A list of very tall people is one thing, but User:Getalis seems to want to create a whole series of these. sjorford// 22:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. At the minimum, Getalis needs to establish a standard naming convention.  The three listed so far are all different.  RickK 22:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. If there is any encyclopedia value in these facts, they should be at List of famous people by height. Thryduulf 22:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) (5'5"ish)
 * Please take this vote as a vote for the entire series. Thryduulf 09:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. And to save him and the rest of us time, I encourage the author to take a hiatus from creating these articles until the VfD matter is settled. -R. fiend 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless. --LeeHunter 23:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 23:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to break up the circle jerk, why not let the series be completed in full before piling on with hysterical complaints? (I swear, the first whine was registered within five minutes of the original 6'4" being posted.) As for the naming convention, you are 100% correct. All future entries will be based on the "X ft X in (X.XX m)" standard, as suggested by andrewa. Getalis 23:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Common etiquette says one should never break up a circle jerk; you must wait for the participants to finish, or you may end up having to eat the cookie. -R. fiend 00:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One problem with 6' 2" is that it isn't just a human height.   You know, its a length; so a lot of things are 6' 2" long.    Next thing you know we're going to need 6' 2", the disambiguation page. Leading to 6' 2" (Human Height), 6' 2" (Crocodile lengths), 6' 2" (Sea depths), etc.  In other words, it is moronic.  --BM 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote yet. Perhaps Getalis can explain what exactly the point of these articles is, as he clearly wants to build up a series. Dbiv 00:27, 30 Jan 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)
 * A list of extremely tall and extremely short people would be interesting, but this is pointless. Delete the whole series. Tuf-Kat 01:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I figure he's really just playing with our heads, but I'll play along for now. Delete.  --RoySmith 01:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see previous comments on Votes for deletion/6'4". Megan1967 03:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And the rest of the series too. -- Hoary 04:02, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Delete all. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please let's just delete them all and move on.  Life's too short. HowardB 14:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)