Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short men


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List of short men

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The introduction says it all :

The Little People of America indicate 148 cm or 4 ft 10 as the "cut-off", but as they concede people slightly taller than that may fit men up to and including 150 centimetres will be included.

The standard by which this list goes is US-centered. Furthermore, a man like Nicolas Sarkozy is often derided in France because of his short stature and called "le nabot" (the midget) by his ennemies. Being 164 cm, he is excluded from the list, although in public perception, he is notable for being a tiny man (and married to a tall and broad-shouldered wife, which makes things worse !). So i think it is quite absurd to fix 150 cm as an upper limit. RCS 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Please also consider the parallel discussion Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men. ~ trialsanderrors 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Sarkozy example is that there are many nations where 164 cm is not necessarily short. Granted I mentioned Pygmies as an exception as if we had to go "short" by their standard we'd have to drop some dwarfs as well. I could maybe add the Hmong as well as I seem to recall they have an unusually low average height. However if we include China, Japan, and most of East Asia as exceptions we're exempting about half the planet. Still if you want to divide by nation, and have anthropometric studies of nations, it might be reorganizable at a later date.--T. Anthony 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So discuss it with other editors on the talk page and come up with something else. Deleting it isn't a good solution. Recury 17:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had been involved in a lot of fighting around the now deleted List of tall men. There is actually no obvious reason to keep this page once the other has been annihiliated, imo. RCS 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit sour grapesy. The other one was an admin decision which is in review. It looks like it's, rather perplexingly, going to lose at review but that's neither here not there. This list should be judged on its own merits if possible.--T. Anthony 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article's definition of "short" is arbitrary and inherently POV. Fixing the limit at 150 cm, while it may be taken from Little People of America, is still POV. Suggest another word should be used in place of "short". Walton monarchist89 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not arbitrary, I switched it to go by the standards of a recognized organization. That that organization is in the USA is not blameworthy in itself.--T. Anthony 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If the limit I switched to is too short, this could've been discussed at talk. I don't think that's a valid reason for delete. I agree it's too US-centric at present, but I could not find a non-US site on anthropometrics. If you can find an international study on height variation I'd appreciate it. Lastly this is the third vote on this in two months.--T. Anthony 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I am having a hard time understanding why this list is necessary, given that there are plenty of categories in which these people can be included. I also fail to see how this isn't just trivia or something best left to the Guinness Book. If this list is kept, it needs renaming for several reasons. First, I do not understand why this is limited to men. Second, "short" in the title implies people who are of below average hight and may have this as a well-known trait (i.e. Napoleon), but this is clearly a list of "little people" or people with some form of dwarfism. Agent 86 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per List of tall men being deleted. JuJube 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So we should only have height lists for women? Is there some kind of logic to that I'm not seeing?--T. Anthony 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have height lists at all. If that AfD had not been pre-emptively closed for reasons I can't fathom, I would have voted delete on that too. JuJube 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Are extremes of human height not encyclopedic? Black Falcon 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they are. JuJube 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Let's agree to disagree on that. How about the criteria for WP:Notability -- extremes of height have been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable publications. I agree that the current articles need to be improved on--including renaming, discussing to build consensus, better sourcing, etc.--but there is no reason to delete them. Black Falcon 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - specifying hard-and-fast limits for any relational adjective (e.g., short, tall, large) leaves room for some criticism.  Note that List of tall women was kept.  If we delete articles based on the fact that they contain "subjective" relational adjectives, then we will have to delete every article in List of "largest" articles.  This is a slippery slope! Black Falcon 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I'm not doing it, though. JuJube 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We don't have to delete every List of "largest" articles, we just have to delete every article in List of "large" articles, which this list is analogous to. Shrumster 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per "List of tall men", though List of tall women should go too. Krimpet 07:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am modifying my vote from keep to keep and rename to List of shortest men. The article can then be edited so that its content reflects this new title. Black Falcon 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is I think the shortest men are largely not in that list and may not even have articles. I'm 3 ft 6, but I don't think I'm among history's shortest men. Not even if I were notable.--T. Anthony 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, for reasons mentioned already and also that it should be easy to determine if a person should be on the list or not. Simply ask yourself, "has this been been refered to in the media as short?". If so get the source, and cite it. Easy as pie. Mathmo Talk 11:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but then the people in the list should have passed their growth-spurt days and not still be growing..hehe.. Cometstyles  talk
 * Keep, as per reasons mentioned above. Turgidson 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is difficult to see why a workable list of "men notable for their shortness" can't be sustainable - perhaps a guideline max of e.g. 150 cm plus any others who are/have been notable for shortness (and, off on a tangent, difficult to see why same approach couldn't have worked on List of Tall Men also). HeartofaDog 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the overturn/relist arguments in the List of tall men DRV, which although endorsed, I find did not provide sufficient consideration for all of the concerns. Pomte 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete. Per my same reasoning on the AfD for the lists of tall men/women. Also a comment to some of the above commentors. The AfD we are discussing is NOT "List of men notable for their shortness", it is "List of short men". There's a big difference. Shrumster 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Granted, but it could be so renamed (and the content converted) without having to delete the whole article and everything it contains. Black Falcon 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Really, this AFD should have waited until the List of tall men AFD had finished, as this article suffers the same problem.  There is no signle definition of 'short'.  If it does have to stay, it should be renamed to List of shortest men.  But given that we have List of people with dwarfism (which is what "list of shortest men" should redirect to, this list is pointless.  Proto ::  ►  22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dwarfism is a medical condition distinct from potentially notable shortness. Black Falcon 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete subjective definitions, people have different ideas of short. Also is fairly useless.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USELESS is itself subjective and not a cause for deletion. Also, height is not subjective -- the article can be changed (both its title and content) to become List of shortest men or List of men notable for their height/shortness.  Black Falcon 06:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep reasons given for deletion are not convincing..If anything,I think the list should be expanded.--Iwazaki 11:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WING. This does not strike me as an encyclopædic topic, notwithstanding any ther such lists that may be here in error Avi 19:41, 6 February 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.