Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous short men (2nd nomination)


 * 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 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

list of famous short men

 * - (view AfD)

very hard to keep track of/verify and also seems to me to be a breeding ground for edit wars.DELETE. The Pink Panther 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (Moved by User:PullToOpen after this nom was mistakenly added to another subpage. PTO 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete WP is not Guinness Book and the term "short" is too subjective and would also vary per culture. Tarinth 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there is already a List of famous short women, List of famous tall men, List of famous tall women. Granted, there is a huge probability of vandalism... for instance, I was going to add subcategories of 5'7 to 6'2 - well, tall and short can be somewhat personally subjective ;0) SkierRMH 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't that the Pokemon defense? :) Presence of similar lists doesn't justify the presence of an article. Personally, those other lists should be AfD'd as well for being inherently POV. Shrumster 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a community that is largely ignored, and yet contributes heavily to the world in which we live. This article helps to shine light on the fact that men do contribute to society regardless of their short stature. However, the article should be limited to men 5'2" and shorter, as per the statistical global average. Wandering Star 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on one hand, I'm insulted that the list goes up to 5'6 because hey, I'm not that short. But overall, this is a pretty harmless list which could be improved to be at the very least properly referenced. Also, all kidding aside, it should probably put the treshold low enough to make the list manageable (say 5'3), :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim per P.T, as I also find some encyclopedic value in the list, but it should be shortened (absolutely no pun intended, I promise) to a more manageable size- 5'5" really is not that short (this coming from a six-footer). -- Kicking222 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is essentially its third deletion vote in four months as the September Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men (2nd nomination) added it in. Limit it to a shorter height if needed, but there are certainly men whose notable relates to their height. Maybe there shouldn't be, but that's not something for us to judge.--T. Anthony 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or move and trim Honestly, "short" is subjective. Maybe rename and trim the list to something like "List of men famous for being short" or something like that. As it is, the list goes on to 5'6", which is already average height where I come from. Right now, it seems to read like a "List of famous people by height up to 5'6" Looking at the list, I have never heard of Bono or Woody Allen being as famous as they are for being "short". At this rate of subjectivity, we could have something like a List of famous ugly people. Shrumster 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete along with List of famous short women, List of famous tall men and List of famous tall women. Lists of people based solely on a personal chracteristic appears pointless, of only subjective value and therefore unencyclopedic. List of people famous for being tall/short might be worthwhile. But these are not. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete along with articles mentioned by WJBscribe above. If considering keep, please give me definitions of "short" and "tall" - the articles are inherently POV as "short" and "tall" are subjective (POV) values. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WJBscribe. м info 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but stricten. 5'6 is too tall to be short (oxymoron?). I'd say knock it down to at most 5'3, preferrably lower. -- Wizardman 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one over 5' 2½ is in it now.--T. Anthony 06:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but make shorter. Nobody taller than 5', otherwise it just gets silly. Now, where's my CD of "Short People" ? WMMartin 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but cut list at 5'3". I personally reference this article often and find it very useful.24.60.212.46 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh come on people. The word "short" is subjective, and as thus the article is inherently WP:POV - that is, it can't written from a neutral point of view. it can't. and really, how is it encyclopedic? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh this isn't an actual encyclopedia. Do you think Britannica or Americana would even have articles on Padmé Amidala or Bulbasaur? Wikipedia doesn't just have them, they're featured content.--T. Anthony 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I would like them to go away. However, those articles at least pretend to be encyclopedic. And, after all: don't forget Five pillars. (This article fails the two first of these five pillars.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well one is "incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Almanacs do have lists, in fact almanacs are largely made up of lists. I'm not sure any almanac would have a list of short people, but it doesn't seem entirely out of bounds of possibility.--T. Anthony 20:01, 13 January 2007 (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.