This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
A height and the people who reached it. Not encyclopedic. --LeeHunter 18:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this were a list of notable people who were unusually tall (where I'm handwaving "unusually"), i.e. as tall as or taller than some boundary height that marks them as exceptional, it might be more worthwhile. But an article for only those people who were exactly 76 inches tall ... No. Merge to such a list, or Delete. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
This is actually just one article in a series of articles, guys. I just happened to start with 6'4". Lighten Up. Getalis 1:48 PM, January 29, 2005.
It's actually User:18.104.22.168 who was the creator of the article. If you speak for xem, then it should be apparent to you both that this is a poor idea that a lot of people disagree with. As both I and User:Sjorford have suggested, a far better approach is to pick an arbitrary height, above which people are "exceptionally tall", and then have a singleList of people over 2m tall (say) article. No-one reading an encyclopaedia is going to think of pulling up a 6'4" article, let alone the even more absurdly named 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m); and having to navigate from article to article to see who is taller than who renders what would probably be the most common use of a list such as this a lot harder than it should be. If we are going to have this at all, have one article, with everyone in height order. This is why my vote was Merge. Uncle G 01:04, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
Delete before he gets around to even more articles. By the time we get to my height, we should have 90% of the adults on the planet. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting stuff. What's unencyclopedic about Abraham Lincoln's height? If we were listing everyone, that would be a problem, sure, but that doesn't seem to be the intention. The names need standardisation, true. Andrewa 20:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly ethnocentric (a list of people taller than 2 meters would be a bit more universal). Oh yeah, it's not notable either. --21:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and the rest of the height series. For most of these people, it's not verifiable how tall they are/were, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of informative: it is neither actionable nor interesting. --Angr 13:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*Keep! Very interesting! Dwain 17:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. —Korath (Talk) 09:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - merge relevant into to articles about the people concerned - Skysmith 09:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per reasons given above. Rossami(talk) 03:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another pointless height article. ral315 21:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.