Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States


 * 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. The thing that would potentially make this encyclopedic is that there is some discussion of a correlation between height and electoral success, but the article and its sources explicitly state that said claims are bogus. What we're left with then is some detailed although silly statistical analysis and a few references to other sources talking about presidential candidate height. All of that adds up to make a trivial association that skirts original research and WP:SYNTH. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment James Madison was like 5'6. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It doesn't matter if the correlation between height and electoral success is real or illusory, as long as it's widely discussed, which it appears to be. Could rename article to something like Theories about presidential height and success or maybe merge to List of common misconceptions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fringe theory perhaps? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extensively covered topic.  For the purposes of the AfD, it doesn't matter if any particular postulated correlation is true or not; the subject is notable.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. This topic easily meets WP:GNG through extensive coverage in reliable sources. We don't delete articles on theories just because they're wrong. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Try this search
 * ("presidents of the united states" OR "us presidents") (height OR tall)
 * on Google Scholar and you'll find lots of relevant stuff, for example . If claims may be bogus we must be sure they are cited explicitly and are not presented in an unbalanced way. I think the article seems pretty good on this. Trivial? Well, there is a lot in the literature about the relationship between height and various measures of success in life and it is sourced commentary that WP seeks. The beginning of "Electoral success as a function of height" is unsourced and I think goes beyond being merely an introduction to the sourced claims that follow. Unless there is a source for the particular remarks I think they should be removed. "Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates" seems to me only to be using simple calculations. The "Statistical breakdown" does not use any statistical analytical technique and seems to be advancing a point without giving sources so it should probably be removed unless sources are provided. Otherwise, after pruning, an acceptable article. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Notability overrides triviality. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 03:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. The subject appears to be notable. TBrandley (what's up) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Coverage elsewhere matters for items within our scope.  This is not within of our scope. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep', subject passes WP:GNG, otherwise merge relevant data to Presidents of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Do a Google search on this topic and you'll see plenty of sources on it (Abraham Lincoln, anyone?) Canuck 89 (converse with me)  08:49, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos & others. Subject easily satisfies WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Would someone please address my suggestion, above, that GNG is not relevant here? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that an article satisfying our general notability guideline isn't notable? Canuck 89 (what's up?)  01:10, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why we have WP:NOT. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Misread that. No, I'm not saying that so much as saying that the question of notability is irrelevant here.  Ask if it's in scope, then ask if it's notable.  As I understand it, that's what WP:NOT is for. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:NOTSTATSBOOK has any relevance at all. This is hardly a "long and sprawling list of statistics".  And if it does, then it's self-evidently a poor descriptor of actual consensus in practice.  We record the heights (and weights) of thousands of professional athletes, and yet policy would forbid a well-organized list about a topic of public interest that is covered in reliable sources?  --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like a "long and sprawling list of statistics" to me. The comparison to athletes is less than apt, imho, as an athelete's stats are directly relevant to their careers/notability/whatever and while the article tries to make that connection, I am profoundly unconvinced that this is relevant in at all the same way. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.