Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous overweight people


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

List of famous overweight people
Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list was already growing in the heavily trafficked and frequently vandalized obesity article and making a separate article is the best way to get it out of there. You know that we have a class of editors whose idea of contributing to human knowledge is to point out that "John Doe is fat". Let's give them a separate place to play so they don't interfere with a real article. Thanks. alteripse 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Serving as a lightning rod for vandalism is a very poor reason to keep an article. Does it have independent merits? JFW | T@lk  08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it has no merits other than keeping people who think it's worthwhile away from the obesity article. I don't personally care whether it lives or dies by itself but I thought it was a useless distraction and a lightning rod for trouble in the obesity article. As long as it is understood that no one re-creates it as part of the obesity article, we can delete it as far as I am concerned. Will you back me on keeping it from being re-started there?alteripse 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason not to have this list. It is important and can be verified based on government definition for fat or obese or using Body mass index. -- JJay 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment : we do have other lists of this type that are sourced, defined and maintained such as List of famous tall women, List of short actors or our list of Notable anorectics found at Anorexia nervosa. -- JJay 07:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those lists are much more narrow. A "list of obese actors" could be manageable; even "list of people famous for their weight" could too - but a "famous overweight" list is too much. This list is like having a "list of tall people" and "list of short people" instead of the ones you posted. Flyboy Will 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it can be managed. The definition could be refined. Maybe by sex like List of famous tall women. -- JJay 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really unsure about that; and also, honestly, how much worth is to this list? Who's going to look at it and go "oh wow, I had no idea Chris Farley was fat! you learn something every day!" A person's weight is immediatley apparent, and this kind of list would mostly be based on public perception, not fact. As such, what's its value, if all the contents are already in the public's mind? Finally, why the hell does this even matter? Save for a handful of comedians, these people's weight is of absolutely no consequence to their notability. Also, what do we do about people like, say, Kristie Allie? Flyboy Will 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but while we know that Farley was fat without the list, isn't the same true for height, race and many other criteria listed at Wikipedia? Yet, editors find these lists very useful and appealing. From the intellectual standpoint, the list is achievable within wikipedia policy guidelines. Therefore, I can't vote against it. -- JJay 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weight is not always publicly known, and it is subject to change. Shall we put Renée Zellweger and Roseanne Barr in there or not? JFW | T@lk  08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete undefined, unsourced and unmaintainble.--nixie 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per above. 9cds 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Overweight" is an insanely broad term. Somebody like Brad Pitt is technically overweight, at 6' and 203 lbs (I just randomly looked it up, not that I know Brad Pitt's weight by heart). Anyway, this list is completely unmaintanable, and even if the inclusion criteria is modified to be obese-only, it can still quickly grow to be the biggest fattest article ever on wikipedia, as soon as we dip into history past Santa Claus. Flyboy Will 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessarily stigmatising, serves no real informational purpose, sourcing is a nightmare (who knows Brad Pitt's BMI), potentially endless as the definition of "famous" is too flexible. JFW | T@lk  08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As for Jennifer Aniston, she has a BMI of 18.3. Her husband -- the hunky Brad Pitt -- has a BMI of 27.5. From "The girth of a nation" at Salon.com . -- JJay 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Many professional athletes would qualify by the BMI index. It only compares height to weight, not body fat or muscle mass.  I'd love to go on a "tall" diet but my height has been constant for years.  The analogy is problematic. Durova 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and constrict inclusion criteria then clean it up. It may be problematic now, but it's a problem that can be solved without deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have no problem with the term "overweight" which is not necessarily defamatory. However, I think that it should be careful of inclusion.  For example, it should only include people who recognise that they are overweight - some people might take offence at being called "overweight" if they personally don't think that they are.  However, the likes of Roseanne and Oprah, who have documented their weight problems, probably wouldn't mind (note: both of those have lost weight since stating that they had weight problems) Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename &mdash; overweight is too inclusive. It can even include actors and actresses who bulked up for a particular role. This should be moved to something along the lines of "list of famous obese people", which is a well defined criteria and more restrictive. Perhaps even narrow it down further to morbidly obese if necessary? :) &mdash; RJH 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ghirlandajo 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:NPOV as there is no definition given for "overweight" and "famous". Also unmaintainable and listcruft. Gateman1997 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per JJay Jcuk 20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Gateman1997. --kingboyk 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Useless, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. How do you handle close cases?  Mail them a scale?  Will Kirstie Alley rejoin if she eats the cannoli?  Jtmichcock 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seriously, Wikipedia may have plenty of frivilous articles, but this crosses the line from "frivilous" to something you'd find in The Inquirer. Also, earlier points of difficulty with accuracy.Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 10:06, 26 December 2005 (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.