Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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 delete all.  Kurykh  20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of short men
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of tall or short is very subjective and highly POV. What is short for an American or a Norwegian might not be the same for a Pygmy or an Asian. Neither is Wikipedia an authority, nor can consensus be used to define and set a particular point of view as to what is short and what is tall. As is quite obvious from the history of all the articles, they are prone to long-term edit-warring, aggravated and heated debates. It's time we get rid of these dregs of balderdash from our encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Delete all subjective lists. Besides which, despite a year passing since this narrowly escaped deletion there is no improvement in the sourcing, and frankly I don't see that changing. There's no way a definition can be agreed which isn't ultimately subjecting and reflecting someone's cultural perspective. Indeed biologically height has varied over time and between races.--Docg 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There may also be BLP issues here. Whilst we may record someone's height, for us to decree them 'short' may be problematic. I hear Tom Cruise has lawyer on standby .--Docg 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - subjective, unsourced, doesn't even use the same units throughout. Who is Wikipedia to call someone short? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all: unfair list, combining dwarfism with people who happen to be short. Danny 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale last time. The definition of tall varies by country, nationality, time and other criteria.  Effoirts have eben made to make these lists other than POV, but in my view they will always fail because a tall Japanese is a short Dutchman. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all: subjective criteria of inclusion, more a trivia list than an encyclopedia list. Tizio 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all: WP:NOT says:
 * "... Wikipedia articles are not: ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..."
 * By that policy we should only have lists of people who are famous for being tall/short.
 * WP:BLP also applies.
 * Phil Bridger 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per obvious. Never going to be NPOV. --Folantin 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no possible objective standard of what constitutes being "tall" or "short" so by definition this is unsalvageable original research. Otto4711 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all I think the only problem is the TITLE of the list, and the feeling that it's offensive to note that someone's height is 5 feet 3 inches or less. However, I think that the idea that a man should be "ashamed" of his adult height (so let's not mention it) is even more offensive.  Should we delete a list of African-American men because someone might not want to be "reminded" of his skin color?  The comments that there is "no objective standard" have to be reconciled with the fact that the list arranges people by their height.  Perhaps this should be called "List of adult males who are 5'3" tall or less", but I don't think that would make any of you less uncomfortable.  Mandsford 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever height you set as the maximum or minimum for inclusion, it's still arbitrary. Otto4711 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a straw man argument. Nobody has said that it's offensive to note someone's height or that anyone should be ashamed of their height. Phil Bridger 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw Gee The time tested "straw man" argument. This one has P.C. written all over it.  Mandsford 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete What exactly is the definition for "tall" or "short"? I have a friend that I consider short, but then there's people who he considers short. There's no real reason for this list.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all lists of tall and short humans!-These articles are rather irrelevant and difficult to verify because there always discussion about starting the tall men list with 6'4" or 6'6" or 6'7" and so on. D@rk K 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. On what viewpoint does the list based from? 5'3" might be short on some areas of the world while they are average on some areas. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 foot 3 is below average male height in all nations I could find. Once upon a time I had it start at 153 cm or 5 ft ¼ inch, which I believe put all names in the "short stature" percentile in most nations. However some joker didn't like that and it's apparently a vandal attractor. Sad really.--T. Anthony 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ok if most countries view that as short. Human height suggests that 5'3" is average in our country though--125.212.21.31 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Cookie expired on me! -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I took off all males above 4'11". I'm still not sure it should be kept, but presumably there is few to no nations with an average male height that's near that short.--T. Anthony 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all! - these are totally useless. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all this idea may be salvageable in some form but this isn't it. JJL 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The objections above are insubstantial. These lists are easily maintained and are currently quite good, as the blue links show.  If you want a test then it should obviously be the existence of secondary sources in which the shortness/tallness of the person is cited as notable feature. Colonel Warden 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I worked hard to keep these, but I don't think they've gotten any better. Also List of people with dwarfism and List of people with gigantism probably cover the most relevant entries well enough.--T. Anthony 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Because it's interesting, and that's a good thing! • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep an article. Phil Bridger 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. But it's still a good thing. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not Martha Stewart's book club. JuJube 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all  irrelevant collection of information.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Arbitrary criteria and indiscriminate info. Masaruemoto 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all for the same reasons noted above by others. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Encyclopedic purpose: This would help anyone exploring any aspect of extreme tallness or shortness and works better than a category because the researcher or browser might well want to look at those who are, for instance, very short or maybe somewhat short. If you want to know about human height and how humans deal with it, you want to search out articles on people who are notable for their height, and this would be an excellent place to start. Maintenance & verification: You can always find sources saying someone is unusually tall or short; if you can't, they don't belong on the list. I actually prefer a more subjective standard, because it focuses on what sources say is remarkably tall or short and it's really the remarks -- what somebody else thought was significant about the person's height -- that is of use here. Noroton 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that just because one source says x is a small man, doesn't mean he is. So, unless this is a list of "everyone ever called small" then you are making a subjective judgment as to whether the source is correct. --Docg 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're not here to establish what the truth is, we're here to establish what reliable sources say is the truth (that comes from Jimbo and from policy), and we can do that by reporting subjective as well as objective statements. In fact, we have to do that all the time. Journalists do the same thing.Noroton 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per all, all, all of the above. It's snowing. Henrik Ebeltoft 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is definitely not snowing. This is not a vote and there are serious objections being made to deletion.  This is no consensus.  Colonel Warden 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment The PC basis for this proposal can be seen by considering other lists which are likewise based upon an extreme dimension such as: List of highest points in the United Kingdom, List of largest optical refracting telescopes, List of most massive stars.  Such lists seem highly encyclopaedic as the evergreen reference Guinness Book of Records consists of little else.  Colonel Warden 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not no consensus by any reasonable reading of the debate. Further, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not serve as a basis or justification for keeping this article. Otto4711 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A difficulty is that we, well you all I don't consider myself a Wikipedian, have featured lists that refer to height or length extremes. See List of tallest buildings in Providence, List of tallest buildings in San Francisco, or List of longest suspension bridge spans. If these had limited themselves to tallest or shortest people they might have done better.--T. Anthony 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is more than many precedents. Such common examples as List of fastest cars demonstrate the encyclopaedic nature of such lists.  The main objection made above is that this is some sort of slur but that is obvious nonsense in the case of tall men, for example.  This is not reason but I don't like it about which you seem to be notoriously unreasonable.  Colonel Warden 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're choosing to dismiss serious concerns about policy and guideline violations with snotty little "you don't like it you notorious person you" attitude. The point still stands, you can point at whatever list you want and say "what about this?" and it does not make a whit of difference as to whether these lists pass the relevant policies and guidelines. The main objections to the lists include: there is no objective definition of what constitutes "tall" or "short" so the list suffers from WP:NPOV problems; the list suffers from impermissible original research issues; the list has WP:BLP implications; WP:NOT concerns; WP:NOT concerns; WP:TRIVIA concerns. It's just a bit more serious than your flip attempt to dismiss it with "I don't like it" seems to take into account. Otto4711 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You called me 'little'! No matter, all your insults are a small matter :).  A person's height is not subjective - it is a quite precise measurement that, for example, might be officially recorded on their passport.  As a personal characteristic, it is less subjective than eye-colour, say.  Whether their height should appear in one of these lists is a matter of notability - a test that is routinely applied by you and other editors.  In the case of someone like Bao Xishun, their notability is evident and reported widely.  A list of such notable tall/small folk is highly objective and encyclopaedic.  The list helps structure such information for our readership in a helpful way since it can rank the heights for comparison.  Such lists based upon measurements of length, weight, speed, size, etc are commonplace in works of reference, as demonstrated above.  Since they are routinely reported by such authorities as the Guinness Book of Records no original research is required.  Colonel Warden 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A problem is this was never limited to "tallest" or "shortest." I proposed that a few times, but never got much interest from editors and received some opposition. People at or over 7 foot 2 inches (218 cm) or at and under 4 foot (122 cm) are often going to be among the world's smallest or tallest.--T. Anthony 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a valid reason for keeping an article your examples would still be irrelevant. "List of highest points in the United Kingdom", "List of largest optical refracting telescopes", and "List of most massive stars" could only be quoted in support of "List of tallest men" etc. Phil Bridger 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted could "tallest men" or "shortest men" lists be allowed?--T. Anthony 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The lists cited above use the superlative form but they contain more than one entry and so are, in fact, list of massive, fast, large things. It's the content that matters, not the exact name and usage.  Colonel Warden 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion An option which might be considered is to merge all four lists into one of People of unusual stature.  This would rank the people by height and only include them if they were noted for this.  The existing four lists could then be redirects.  This would simplify maintenance and make the tone more neutral Colonel Warden 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That's even more POV - define 'unusual'- usual for what and says who. Delete all subjective lists.--Docg 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unusual height is height that is reported as such by independent, reliable sources. This is our usual method and this is really no different.  If you don't like the word 'unusual' then some synonym like 'exceptional' might be used instead.  Colonel Warden 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * sourcing will not work. That one person once calls some "short" does not make it so. If I find a Washington Post columnist that once opined "George Bush seems like a very little man when you meet him" - can I put him on the list. I've got a source that says Napoleon was not exceptionally small - so can I remove him. THere's no way to be objective here.--Docg 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on Napoleon discusses the matter at great length. His height is clearly notable but its exact value is unclear and so would best appear in a 'disputed/uncertain' section of the list.  Not a problem and nothing that we aren't doing already in the main article Colonel Warden 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all That someone has a particular height is source-able, and that's all that is actually needed for WP:V. If the information is uncertain is can be so specified. No policy problem--the setting of specific heights makes it a discriminating and defensible list. DGG (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That someone has a particular height can be sourced, but how do you define "tall" and how do you define "short"? That is plain subjective. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an authority, we need verifiable and authoritative sources; and this is not an ethnocentric or a nation-centric encyclopedia. There is no way we are getting authoritative sources that define what is short and what is tall across cultures, races and nations. These lists are indiscriminate. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this may well comply with WP:V, but that's not the only Wikipedia policy. It still fails on WP:NOT. Phil Bridger 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Perhaps with a change in titles to avoid offending those of a PC bent. Stature is a psychologically and socially significant aspect of human life, however regretfully some might regard this reality. Better citation, perhaps? But lack of citation is reason for improvement, not deletion. WP can, encyclopedically, include this information. Refactor to reduce PC objection. ww 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (got logged off somehow
 * Comment If these lists are to be kept (which I still oppose on WP:NOT grounds) then I would oppose a change of titles. The current titles are accurate descriptions and would be what readers would search for if they wanted this information. Political correctness is not a Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is as important as articles on height in general, however, I think it should have some more info on it (eg. "This section and so on is the top 99.99 percentile if human height). Also, I'd just like to point out that this has been nominated for deletion 4 times, with no consensus, and reimplemented after a deletion.  That is quite enough of this article being nominated for deletion.  Hell, with a bit of work, this could be a featured list. 96.225.64.203 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all as inherently subjective lists, with entirely arbitrary criteria for inclusion: these lists are the very definition of 'indiscriminate collections of information'. Terraxos 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly: The definitions of indiscriminate collections of information do not cover this list. The closest it gets is "sprawling lists of statistics" but this list doesn't sprawl in a confusing way - it just lists notable examples of short people in order of height.  This is not indiscriminate but rather is highly discriminating.  Colonel Warden 23:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The examples noted at WP:NOT are not exhaustive. And even if they were and these lists didn't fall under one of them, it still fails numerous other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all The PC urge to protect the sensibilities of persons who are in some group is really a covert way for the PCist to assert his superiority over the members of that group and to assert domination over others. He says to the group members, "You are too weak to protect your own sensibilities, and unusually vulnerable emotionally to unintended slights.  I, who am stronger, must protect you."  This condescending urge, and it's concomitant baseless assertion of superiority, must be resisted.  Drawyar 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your screed against political correctness in no way addresses the policy and guideline issues raised in the course of this AFD. Otto4711 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus this comment is the only contribution Drawyar has ever made to Wikipedia. --Folantin 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all the subjective nature of these articles is not a reason to delete them. The fact that they represent lists of different spans of men/women, which is a non-encyclopedic topic, is a good reason, as is the indiscriminate form they have assumed. Maser  ( Talk! ) 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep List of tall men This article is clearly the best, and it should be kept. Freddy Krueger 20:16, 12 November 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.