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 to delete, default to keep. After substantial consideration of the arguments presented, that's about all I can say, except that the principal question - at what height should the lists start? - appears to me to be less an encyclopedic fact in need of sourcing, but a matter requiring the community's editorial judgment, i.e., consensus and discussion. Policy is of little help here, as several people have noted. I suggest a half-year moratorium on any further deletion requests. Sandstein 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall women, List of tall men[edit]

List of tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of tall women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4|AfD5)

A potential candidate for the List of most protracted deletion topics on Wikipedia. The back history of deletion discussions is documented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 30. The last full discussion (AfD4 above), which lead to a delete was overturned after review of the deletion review (Note to all editors: Please please please always log a bolded opinion), and I'm listing both lists here for consistency. Please also note the parallel discussions on List of short men. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion (yet). ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per WP:NOT. I've already registered my feelings about height-based lists on previous AfDs, plus I feel its ease of vandalism far outweighs its encyclopedic import. JuJube 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, note to the above. The ease of anything being vandalised is not a reason for deletion. If you are really worried then add those pages you fear for the vandalism to your watchlist. Mathmo ^Talk 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course I agree that "easy to vandalize" is not a reason for deletion, which is why I've stated my REAL reason is WP:NOT and not enough encyclopedic merit. Please read editor's posts completely before getting snarky on them. JuJube 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT is extremely broad please state specifically which part of it applies, likewise "encyclopedic merit" is also rather vague. Mathmo ^Talk 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Indscriminate collection of information". Which it is. JuJube 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is a list of the tallest people in the world/in history, or a list of people notable for being tall "indiscriminate"? Black Falcon 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it is. "Notable tallness" would be established by any passing mention by any short journalist. Such statements as "Barack Obama stands above the crowd" or "Bill O'Reilly towers over his guest", recorded in media, will be "notable tallness". Are those guys tall? Yes, but where does this end? Damn near everyone over 5'10" has been called tall by someone, somewhere, and 5'10" is going to result in a list ten times as large as the current one. This will actually be a very big problem for politicians, because it is actually part of the spin system to drop mentions about height, since it's a fact that tall politicians tend to be elected more readily. Mentions of notable height are quite spammy for many occupations. As for "tallest people", if you mean only the tallest person in the world at any given time, this will have a very glaring bias for Westerners (Wikipedia already has a terrible problem with such bias), and if you start trying to break it up by geography you inevitably run into all the POV problems that border disputes bring in. Who's the tallest person from China? What if they live in Taiwan? It's just another invitation to different messes, no less tendentious, and no more useful for this encyclopedia. All the information about height can and should be noted in the individual articles of each separate person, so no information need be lost. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see why these are continually recreated- what on Earth defines 'tall' and such? Unmaintainable, vague, POV-ridden list-cruft. Also, can I note that the above editor actually gave no reason for keeping the article. This is NOT A VOTE. J Milburn 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, getting sick of repeating myself. The first voter didn't exactly list their reasons either, rather a vague reference to comment they made on other AfD's. Well, I've stated my opinion on others too. Regardless, I see your point. Probably edit in something more worthwhile later. Mathmo ^Talk 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't continually recreated at all. The list of women has never been actually deleted and the one time that the list of men was deleted it was overturned on DRV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For values of overturned which include sending it back here with the equally unencyclopaedic women list for a wider debate. Nobody has yet addressed the problems of arbitrariness, original research and systemic bias identified at the last AfD. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - the only argument provided for deletion was that the list's inclusion criteria are "subjective". However, this (in my opinion, misapplied) criticism would extend to all lists that are not naturally-bound to a relatively small number. A list of countries or capital cities, for example, is bound to a maximum of 190-250 entries. A list of the largest suspension bridges and of the tallest buildings and structures (both of which are featured lists), although still finite, are much larger (in the thousands in the former case and the hundreds of millions in the latter). That does not mean they are not encyclopedic and/or impossible to work with! It is a useless exercise to try to impose a level of rigidity on Wikipedia that is not present in the English language itself, and that indeed diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia itself. Black Falcon 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is factually inaccurate. There were other reasons for deletion, including bias, original research and unmaintainability. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a legitimate concern, Any standard could seem to be defining things here that aren't defined in the real world. Because of that it probably does need to be limited to tallest or we need someone with a better understanding of "tall stature" in medical usage than I have. I've read some on the matter, but probably not enough.--T. Anthony 14:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - rename: to address some concerns about the articles, I propose they be renamed to List of tallest men and List of tallest women (and edited accordingly) or to List of men notable for their height and List of women notable for their height. Black Falcon 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but with a renaming or other stricter criteria. Listing people who are of exceptional, world record height makes sense, women who happen to be over six feet, not so much (I personally know at least half a dozen). I'm liking "tallest," in line with List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Height is objectively measurable and verifiable, the list is not fundamentally POV, it's just got some scope issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That makes sense. A list of the tallest people, who have become notable for their height and height alone, would be a good list. Just throwing anyone who happened to be quite tall is a bad idea. J Milburn 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I feel a bit too sapped on this one to repeat myself, suffice to say that I have not changed my mind since the previous discussions on the topic. Agent 86 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listcruft. I know plenty of tall men and women, but I would not add them to this list even if I could source the claim. This is a list of people who are notable in their own right, who also happen to be tall (which is, in itself, an arbritary claim). I believe that for inclusion in such a list, a persons primary claim to notability should be their height - and if that is the criteria, then such a list would have no more than a few entries. -- Qarnos 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list could be modified to include people who have been noted in a WP:RS for their tallness. There are plenty of these kinds of people (and not just basketball players). Black Falcon 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - World's records in human physical limits are indeed notable. Picture the sales of 125 million copies of Guiness World Records every year. Evidently those people find world record's notable. Perhaps we should super-combine this discussion with all World Records. Let's delete track and field records while we're at it and baseball records and every other World's record. I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Wjhonson 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list. The argument that Guinness World Records holds such information is not convincing. First, Guinness typically lists only the tallest person - that is, they maintain a single entry, not a list of all people who are alleged to be "tall". Second, Guinness is not an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - irretrievably POV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What, if I may ask, is particularly POV about the article? Claims of "tallness" can be documented, if that is the problem. Black Falcon 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Tall' is POV. I am 6'2"- am I tall? In some communities (The Netherlands, for instance) I would not be considered tall. Some communities (like those made up of pygmies) would consider me giant. J Milburn 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tall is a relational adjective, by which I mean one that describes an objects in relation to others. Relational adjectives are a normal part of everyday English. Wikipedia cannot be more specific/rigorous than the English language (or, in fact, any other language) allows. As for you personally, does a reliable source note you as being notably "tall"? If it does, then by all means add your name to the list. If not, then don't. If you don't like that, then how about List of tallest men/women? Black Falcon 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The question is, what reliable sources are there for determining whether height is notable? Record books? In that case, a great deal of names should be stricken from the lists. Shrumster 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I most certainly agree: many, many names should be dropped from the lists. As for sources, not necessarily just record books. For historical figures, history books might be used (most books about Russian history note that Peter the Great towered over most of his compatriots). For contemporary figures, any number of sources exist, including record books, almanacs, news articles (such as [1]), etc. (by news articles, I am of course not referring to such things as: "the murdered has been described by witnesses as tall, dark-haired, etc."). Black Falcon 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, however, I think the scope of the article should be interpreted as either "List of notably tall men" or "List of tallest men" (which would be included by the former). One's height is surely objective, and notability for one's height is just as easy to evaluate as notability for any other quality. — brighterorange (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Height as a value is objective. Height being described as "tall" or "short" is subjective. In the same way as weight is objective, but calling someone heavy/light is subjective. Shrumster 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Delete. The lists, by virtue of their scope as proclaimed by their titles, are inherently POV. "Tall" is highly subjective, depending on where your POV lies. The "list of tall women" article, for example, has a lead entry that is U.S.-specific. Separating the "basketball section" makes the list even more subjective and POV. Why accord a special sub qualification for a specific sport? Because to use the article's own set "rules" would put too many names into the "basketball" section. Because of this, the article is internally inconsistent. Bringing the other list into consideration, one can see that they aren't consistent as sister-lists as well. As of now, the male list starts at 6'5", with a separate section once more for "basketball". NPOV is impossible with these lists, as with any list that uses a subjective descriptor. In order for the lists to be NPOV, they'd have to be named something along the lines of List of men taller than 6'5" or something similar, and by using a value-limiter in the title, the lists would then make no sense. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia, not an almanac, and it is definitely not Guinness Book of World Records. Shrumster 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes wikipedia is the Guinness Book of World Records. We have at least one thousand articles regarding Records of some sort. This one is no different. Wjhonson 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While you are entirely entitled to your own opinion of what Wikipedia is, I shall point you towards WP:INN. Oh, and these lists aren't even records. They're indiscriminate lists of people whose height just happens to be higher than an arbitrarily set value. It might even be construed as original research, a big no-no in WP. Shrumster 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I understand your position and arguments. However, please also consider the following. Firstly, it is possible to set a value that is selected by non-Wikipedians (e.g., some height research institute). Secondly, the article can be renamed and edited to fit a new purpose--that way the criticisms will be addressed and the editors of the new articles won't have to start from zero. Black Falcon 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In its current form the list is subjective, but can be altered to become objective without deletion of the whole thing. Height is not inherently subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Options - these are our options, as I see them (please add to the table if you can think of any others. Although I can see how the delete option is seductive (no effort required), it also leaves us with nothing for an article and leaves WP worse off (IMHO, of course). Black Falcon 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option	Effort required?	Result
Keep as is	No (close discussion)	The articles are kept and discussion moves to the talk page.
Delete	No (close discussion)	The articles (and any useful info they contain) is lost from WP A precedent is established for deleting any list (including featured lists) that is not naturally-bound at a small number (e.g., a list of continents). No such precedent is set. A precedent would be set for the removal of lists whose inclusion criterion is made up by editors rather than being taken from reliable secondary sources.
Rename to List of the tallest men/women	Yes (edit article to fit new title)	A list of the tallest men/women is created (currently, throughout time, by region, etc.--that's a technical issue for the talk page). Problems include: lack of reliable data prior to mid 20th Century, variation of height between countries (a 6'2" sumo is a very tall man in japan)
Rename to List of men/women notable for their height or List of notably tall men/women (or something similar)	Yes (edit article to fit new title)	A list is created that includes only those individuals whom a WP:RS lists as being notably "tall" or who are otherwise famous because of their tallness (e.g., the tallest man/woman alive).
Redirect to List of notable giants	No (all very tall people are already on there)	The only people remaining on the list are those who truly are 'tall', and are notable for the height (as opposed to being known for something else and happening to be pretty tall). This option is broken and inaccurate because height and gigantism are not synonymous.

• • Comment I note that the "Result" entry for a "delete" consensus leaves out the upside of deleting the article. I suggest that there is, in that a number of commentators have opted for "delete" (and I don't intend to repeat what everyone has said on the topic to illustrate the point - they're there for the reading). Agent 86 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As requested, I added a fifth option. Proto::► 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rename to tallest. . Frankly, I did not expect to vote this way, but I was judging from the title of the page. Upon actually looking at them, I find them exceptionally well done, and encyclopedic. The placement in the list is quantifiable--it isn't like a list of best known anything. Though it is necessary to pick where to stop, the inclusion of individuals depends on objective criteria. (i.e, there are no problem with POV), in almost all cases the data is trustworthy, and the less-than-perfectly trustworthy ones are indicated, so it's V) . Observably physical charactertics of people are of general interest, and people are interested in this particular property, for it is conspicuous (deliberate choice of word). As others have written aboutthem in multiple sources, they meet the general criteria for N. There is even N for the individual people, because there are WP articles for almost all, so it was demonstrated for each such article. The virtue of the name change is that it emphasizes he objective nature of the determination along a scale. Then do not in general involve questions of BLP, for the individuals here are here because the information is known publicly, and many of them have made it the basis of their career.

In other words, they meet the criteria. and there is no basis for excluding them. The repeated discussions indicate that this verdict has met consistent an long-standing lack of consensus, and the present discussion just continues to show there will be none. Therefore, by our rules the list stays; possibly the renaming will help.DGG 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are POV problems, as I've pointed out the previous debates. One such problem is that any cutoff point favors 20th and 21st century Westerners, especially Scandinavians and to a slightly lesser extent, Americans. This has been noted by several other editors before I'm bringing it up here. The POV concern that I noticed and brought up in previous debates is that arriving at a particular cutoff point is arbitrary, and since there's no "good reason" to choose 6'5" instead of 6'3", someone who wants their favorite person included can always come along and change it, and no one else can have any legitimate argument why they're wrong. An example, below in this very debate, is User:Dudo2 who wants the list changed back to 6'3" so that Lou Ferrigno can be included. Is Dudo wrong? If so, why? If not, why? There's no rationale argument one way or the other, so POV pushers will forever move the criteria around, just like they've done in the past. Now, as to the fact that this debate continues to be contentious, that's not an indication that there's no consensus for deletion. We've had many contentious debates result in deletion; the GIAA comes to mind. The fact is that one side here has consistently been arguing on basis of policy, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, while the other side wants to circumvent these requirements. A contentious debate can still reach consensus if only one side is backed up in policy. I do not believe that editors' passion is a basis for keeping articles. I've seen hundreds of very passionate AFDs go by, and the mere fact that there is a dispute should never be mistaken for "no consensus". Policy comes first unless there's a good case for invoking WP:IAR, and I've seen no such case here. — coelacan talk — 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The table above is based on a false premise and its argument against deletion on begging the question: that size is the only problem with these lists. The problem here is amply demonstrated by an analysis of the tall men article:

• 6'5" is an arbitrary number, WP:NOT indiscriminate. Over the past few months it seems to have varied between 6'1" and 6'7", none of which has ever been supported by a reliable definition from an external source, so...
• 6'5" as a threshold for "tall" is a number plucked out of the air - it is original research, there is no agreed definition of "tall" in the reliable sources. The same applied when it was 6'3", 6'7" etc.
• There is a difference of nearly a foot between the average height of a Vietnamese and a Dutchman, the list is systemically biased and fails WP:NPOV. Here is the list of average heights from a tolerably reliable source:

Australia: 5' 10", 178cm

Brazil: 5' 6.9", 170cm

China: 5' 6", 168cm

France: 5' 7.7", 171.9cm

Germany: 5' 8.2", 173cm

Holland: 6' 1", 185cm

Italy: 5' 8.0", 172.8cm

Japan: 5' 6", 168cm

Sri Lanka: 5' 4.5", 163.9cm

Sweden: 5' 8.5", 174cm

United Kingdom: 5' 10", 178cm

United States: 5' 10", 178cm

Vietnam: 5' 3", 160cm

• 6'5" is normal for a basketball player, very unusual for a ballet dancer, the list is essentially a list of basketball players and some other people nearly as tall as basketball players. That makes it useless instead of WP:USEFUL, which is in any case not a grounds for inclusion.
• 6'5" was unheard of in the 12th Century, this list is also temporally biased - Edward I of England went down in history as Edward Longshanks, his height would be considered barely above average today.

Not one of these issues has yet been addressed. So: biased, indiscriminate, arbitrary, original research - against which we have WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. Deleting an arbitrary POV list sets no precedent whatsoever other than for the deletion of lists which fail policy. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias could exist in most any kind of list of anything. List of largest suspension bridges is biased against countries like Bhutan which can't produce things like that. List of tallest buildings and structures in the world could be said to be temporally biased as only a few structures from before 1880 are listed. In addition this is about extremes of height and that can occur anywhere.--T. Anthony 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to respond to each of your criticisms.

• Arbitrariness - according to that reasoning, any list that does not include all objects (the universe of applicable cases) to which it refers (e.g., all 50 states of the US) should be deleted. There are a great many topics which this would automatically exclude. Furthermore, as noted above, the title and focus of the article can be changed to include either only the "tallest" individuals or individuals who are noted for their height in reliable sources.
• Original research - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
• Systemic bias - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
• Uselessness - that is your personal opinion, to which you are of course entitled. Oh, and, renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well.
• Temporal bias - renaming/refocusing the article takes care of this as well (or add a historical figures section).

Essentially, you make a good case for improving the article, but not a very convicing one for deleting it. Black Falcon 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And deleting a list for not meeting a level of objectivity that is not afforded by the English language does set a precedent and a very bad one at that. Black Falcon 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A List of tallest men could address all of these biases, by listing the tallest men of each country, the tallest men at each point in history, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, of little empirical value to an encyclopaedia. Too subjective. Do not rename - List of tallest men ought to redirect to List of notable giants. That is the article that compares with what Black Falcon mentions (such as "largest suspension bridges" This article is like having largest suspension bridges and then having an extra article, on bridges that are pretty big but we're going to arbitrarily pick a cut off point, or bridges that are notable for other things but are also pretty big. If there are any really tall people on the article in discussion, they are already on the gigantism list, making the people truly noted for being tall duplicate entries. We also already have (very good) encyclopaedic articles on the topics associated with the very tall, to complement the giant list, at Gigantism and acromegaly. Proto::► 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned by the nominator, also note List of short men is at AFD, too (and again is made stupidly pointless by List of people with dwarfism). Proto::► 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note, again, that dwarfism, like gigantism, is a medical condition. Black Falcon 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - these articles should not redirect to the List of notable giants article, as the latter is "solely for people with medical conditions in the gigantism family". Moreover, how are extremes of height not relevant to an encyclopedia? Also, these article, if renamed to "List of tallest men/women" or somesuch, would not be like an "extra" suspension bridge article--it would be the equivalent of the suspension bridge article. But then, according to the "subjective" criticism, even that list should go: why does it not include any bridges below 290m in length? According to the "subjective" criticism, that list should be deleted unless every suspension bridge in the world is included in it. Otherwise, any cut-off point is "subjective". Black Falcon 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People ith gigantism are not necessarily giants, just as people who are giants do not necessarily suffer from gigantism. The two terms are not synonymous. That being said, the point is moot, as the article is now at List of people with gigantism (it was moved from 'List of notable giants'). I still back deleting this article. Proto::► 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as well as List of short men and list of short women. Poor catagorization.--Sefringle 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please clarify what you mean by "poor categorization"? Thank you, Black Falcon 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete for both. Not only useless listcruft, but completely subjective and therefore O.R.--WilliamThweatt 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you would support renaming/refocusing the article as outlined above? Black Falcon 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there a really very good external / official / legal criteria for being "tall"? (and of course one that doesn't count everyone who's above the average height of a person / group of people, which would cover half the world's / group's population). If there isn't some source then I think the criteria would basically be someone's (or a group's) point of view. A sourced list of the absolute tallest men / women who've ever lived would be OK though. FredOrAlive 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information/collection of all facts from history/record of events from the dawn of time/ect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but WP is (or should be) "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge", such as extremes of height. Would you support renaming/refocusing the article as suggested above to List of tallest men/women or List of men/women notable for their height or something similar? Black Falcon 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• cleanup I agree that listing folks by height is itself a bit silly, however, listing the world's tallest men/women is not. This information is verifiable, and it makes up a major portion of the Guinness Book of World Records reason for existence. So there are people notable for being tall. Thus this article should exist in some form. FrozenPurpleCube 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Cleanup Unless there is a prohibition of lists at WP, then it should stay. The NPOV issue is nonsense. Height is measurable with a ruler; tall is subjective, but it becomes pretty obvious that the list will become non-notable when the threshold for inclusion becomes too low. --Kevin Murray 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So what do you think it should be? Proto::► 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/cleanup. These articles seem far more encyclopedic than I would have expected and - as long as verified - I don't see any problem with them. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - On consideration though I think it should be by nation rather than height. Like the 1 or 2 tallest people per country. (In cases where we know the tallest in said country) Two for cases where there are two claimants or there's a living and non-living example of tallest. Then maybe an additional section for historic and legendary people like Peter I of Russia or Mary I of Scotland.--T. Anthony 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like to see a list of the tallest men and the tallest women. I do not want to see a list of slightly (3 inches) above average famous people with different standards for easch national and ethnic group. Tall is tall and notable. If it is all basketball players, so be it. It is an editing task, not an AFD function, to set the bar, but height is extremely objective. I might want to know the names of men who are over 7 feet tall. Edison 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dodging the subjectivity trap, cleanup and rename Restated below. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the definition of tall according to a consensus of reliable sources is?.... Guy (Help!) 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're moving toward retooling this as tallest or among the tallest. However "tall stature" is not a single height, but is instead a range that begins several deviations above average height. That beginning will vary by nation, but there should remain a subset which is tall in all nations. For example Endangered species might be defined differently in differing placing, but there is almost certainly a limit that no nation goes below in defining the matter. What is tall in the tallest average nation, I believe that was the Netherlands, should be tall stature with all nations. That might sound ethnocentrically biased, but there's no reason every nation must be equally represented in all lists. In addition to that the 99,8th percentile of Vietnam would add up to about as many people as the 99th percentile of the Netherlands anyway.--T. Anthony 08:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was more of a move to tallest and edit article accordingly. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the individuals on the list have been scientifically documented and are the biggest (tallest) people ever recorded. I don't see how it would matter what country they come from, etc. They are simply known to be the tallest, period. - Gilliam 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the definition of tall according to a consensus of reliable sources is?.... Guy (Help!) 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria Sharapova is the tallest, period? -- Qarnos 07:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the idea is among the tallest. The standard can be raised if this is switched to tallest. If that occurs women and men should still probably be treated separately due to their being treated separately in anthropometrics or height studies. The Dutch starts women at 201 cm (6 ft 7) I believe. This might be too restrictive, but perhaps not. Women like Ekaterina Gamova and Anne Donovan would still remain.--T. Anthony 08:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're going to replace the arbitrarily chosen height with an arbitrarily chosen centile? Sorry, that doesn't fix the problem. It's still arbitrary. T. Anthony's comment is a perfect example of the problem: setting the height bar in order to give the preferred number of inclusions is wrong in so many ways! Guy (Help!) 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I shouldn't have mentioned the Dutch standard, it was just an example. Anyway no percentiles and standard deviations are not arbitrary. It's the method medical science uses when defining "tall stature" and "short stature." I can get you the information from the National Institute of Health or Cornell or one of those if you need it. Here's Scholar Google results for tall stature. I think it's 3 SDs above average height. I need to learn more about standard deviation to quantify that, but it's not something I invented. If you want to argue with places like the Royal College of Paediatrics go ahead though.--T. Anthony 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addendum. In normal distribution it seems 3 SD is the 99.73002039367% percentile. If I can find something on that, or 3 SD above average height, this would go along with the Pediatrics site. I'm concerned I won't find anything that specific, but the issue isn't impossible I'd think.--T. Anthony 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are roughly 6 Billion people in the world. Assuming a reasonably normal distribution, three standard deviations would give us a list over 16 million long. Even 6 standard deviations would be a list over 12,000 long - and that's just for people alive today. That's not a maintainable standard. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • People seem to have trouble understanding lists of people and your statement is a good example of that. Lists are not intended to list every person in the world who fits the topic. Take for example List of people with epilepsy, which is a featured list. According to the Epilepsy foundation 2.3 million, in the United States alone, had epilepsy in 1995. The List of people with epilepsy is not intending to list the millions of people in the world that have epilepsy, but is instead about notable cases. All lists are bound by Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability. Maybe 4 SD would be better as even more limiting, only 1 in 15,000 people would fit that if I read it right, but I couldn't medical validation for that.--T. Anthony 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Limitation to "list of people with condition xxx who are primarily notable for other reasons" is the normal interpretation for such lists. That did not seem to be the intent in this case given the wording of the comments above. Thank you for clarifying. Rossami (talk)
              • Actually, 6 sd would give us only 5.9196 people. Only 0.00000019732% are 6 standard deviations away from the mean (multiply this by 6 billion, divide by 100 as its a percentage) and you get 11.8392--however this includes both 6 sd above and below the mean. In any case, no one is proposing to include all 8 million people who are three standard deviations above the mean (the remaining 8 million are below it)--either only those who are notable of their own right and are on WP or (more likely) only those who are notable for their height. Oh, and those 6 people above 6 standard deviations should definitely be included. Black Falcon 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • My apologies. Your math for 6σ is correct. I slipped a digit when I estimated it last night. More evidence of the dangers of editing when tired. Thank you for catching it. Rossami (talk)
• Keep..per black falcon.--Iwazaki 11:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep primarily because this was just put up for AfD.--Wizardman 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... where it was closed as "delete", appealed at Deletion review and sent back here for re-evaluation by the community. The normal standards about renominations don't really apply in this case. Would you please clarify your opinion about the article itself? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright then. Change to reluctant delete. I love this list it's always fun to look at, but the numbers are just way too arbitrary.--Wizardman 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps renaming to List of tallest men/women and editing the article accordingly would help? Cheers, Black Falcon 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's still an arbitrary criterion and it's notable people who happen to be tall, not people who are notably tall. I might support that list, but this list isn't that list, so the idea that we should keep this list because that list would be good seems a bit odd. I will re-evaluate if work is done to turn this list into that list. GassyGuy 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the criteria are so arbitrary as to be indiscriminant. The other lists proposed (list of tallest and list of notble for height) could probably be created in line with policy but don't think that these lists would be a good foundation to build them on. Eluchil404 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt has been shown that government and governmental agencies criteria can be applied for the definitive standard of tall.Halbared 07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query "Definitive" according to whom? Shown by whom? Shown where? GassyGuy 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly not OR, nor an indiscriminant collectio of info. Well sourced article with a point, which seems to have been improved immensely each time is was nominated for deletion. DavyJonesLocker 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The definition of tall is arbitrarily chosen, as is the length of the lists, as is everything else about these lists. They serve no encyclopedic purpose; they're merely lists of trivia, arranged in an original way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Make this a List of men over 6 foot 6 inches and we could let it ride as non-arbitrary. But I doubt that would pass an AFD either. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is discussion ongoing to change it to a List of tallest men to bypass any claims of "arbitrary" standards or to use a definition provided by a medical institute on height (e.g., the Royal College of Paediatrics). Black Falcon 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not commented on the proposal to change the title to "List of tallest men" because I do not understand it. Tallest is a superlative. By definition, there can be only one. How do you have a list of tallest men? What are you really proposing? Rossami (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for pointing this out--the correct title would be List of the tallest men (by time period, region, etc.)--this of course presupposes that such a rename (and not some other change) will receive consensus support. In an effort to keep the title short, I had overlooked the consequences of leaving out the "the". Thanks again, Black Falcon 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure that it fully solves the problem yet. What limits will be imposed to keep the classifications from proliferating inappropriately? "Tallest man in the world" - sure. "Tallest man in the 18th century" - okay (though I don't know how you'd ever prove it). But at some point you get to "tallest blue-eyed plumber in Akron with a mole on his left forearm". What criteria do you propose to define the limits of the parsing? Without some idea about possible controls, this appears to merely shift the subjectivity to a different area. Do you have a mock-up of how you think the proposed article might be laid out? Rossami (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I love the example! Here's how I propose we keep out plumbers with heterogeneously-pigmented skin from the list. If the title remains List of tall men, then it should include only notable men above a certain cutoff point (specified by an internationally-recognized height institute). As this is somewhat difficult, it may be renamed List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height (in which case List of short men should be merged into it). In these two cases, subjectivity is removed by listing only those people who are notable for their height according to one or more reliable sources. As for my "by time period" comment, I didn't mean to list the tallest man in each century (although I realize that's what it reads like). Instead, I meant having a section for historical figures who are notably tall (e.g., Peter the Great). I hope this clarifies my intention somewhat--I would be happy to have your comments. Black Falcon 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (A-Dust 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. WP is not an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That one almost made me spit out my coffee. If wikipedia isn't an online database... what is it? I think it is. Wjhonson 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  An encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. See also WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. — coelacan talk — 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear god, make them go away - in other words, delete and delete. How there is anypossible question that "tall" is 100% subjective is a complete bafflement to me. I had hoped with the recent deletion of the list of tall men that at least half this battle was over, but alas the conflict continues. Drive stakes through their hearts, bury them at crossroads, sprinkle holy water and chant voodoo spells but make these ridiculous lists disappear. Otto4711 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming you are in the United States, your proposal would need the approval of, in order: the Forest Service, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice headed by John Ashcroft. How about we just rename the lists and revise their content to List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height (I've written a potential draft of the inclusion criteria for the latter at User talk:Black Falcon#re: List of the tallest men)? "Tall" is a relational adjective, but "notable tallness" is not subjective. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List with clearly defined scope, topic and inclusion criteria. -- User:Docu
  • It is most certainly none of those things, which is why it's on the deletion block again, because the scope has never been decided by consensus and never will be. You must have mistaken these for some other lists. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coelacan, please remain WP:CIVIL. The only reason these articles are "on the deletion block again" is because the prior discussion was inappropriately closed and the decision to delete the article was overturned at DRV. Please do not (deliberately or not) mislead people--you may say I am not assuming good faith and perhaps I'm not. However, why should I assume good faith given strong evidence to the contrary--you were one of the most active participants in the DRV and are thus undoubtedly aware of it. Black Falcon 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are mistaken. The DRV resulted in relisting not because the AFD had been incorrectly closed, but only because the two AFDs had come to separate conclusions and DGG and others asked for a bundled relisting only so the result would be consistent. Unless I'm badly miscounting, the DRV had 10 "endorse deletions" and only 5 "overturn/relists", at least two of which were only for the sake of bundling. In any other case, this 2:1 margin would be a clear endorsement of closure; the only reason this was relisted was for the consistency that would result from bundling the two. The "on the deletion block again" refers to this entire recent deletion, AFD4/DRV/AFD5 as a piece, and it is indeed here because the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, that's why AFD4 began. I'm not misleading anyone and I'd appreciate it if you continue to assume good faith instead of making insinuations about my intentions. Considering that multiple editors above have repeated the fact that the list is arbitrary, I see no reason for you to pick out my statement and say it's misleading, when I'm reiterating others' words. — coelacan talk — 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My sincerest apologies, then--I should have at least asked you to clarify your statement. When you wrote that the articles are "on the deletion block again", I naturally assumed you were referring to this AfD specifically, in which case "arbitrariness" is not the reason (instead it is the decision at DRV). The DRV resulted in overturn/relist to bundle the two together for consistency and due to a lack of consensus on the closure. The actual count for the DRV is 12 "endorse deletions" and 12 "overturn/relists" (I think it comes to 10-5 if you count only those who typed Endorse, Overturn, or Relist). Again, I apologize. I should have assumed good faith. As it turns out, by pointing you to WP:CIVIL (for the comment "You must have mistaken these for some other lists."), I did not follow a parallel policy (WP:AGF). -- Black Falcon 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries. Thank you for reconsidering my intent. I may also have counted the DRV wrong; and as we're here already I'm not going to go back over it again with a fine-toothed comb. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for User:Docu's reasons. Also, WP:INHERENTLY FUN Noroton 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, WP:ILIKEIT? — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No (but it's an interesting page), more like: Back in the real world, people are interested in this, Wikipedia is inherently well placed to construct such an article and Wikipedia should play to its strengths. Knowing who is known for being tall and who happens to be tallest are both useful in limited circumstances (and Wikipedia is, if I may be allowed this heresy, actually meant to be useful, and all Wikipedia articles are only useful in limited circumstances), and no encyclopedia has ever been opened only for serious purposes. Wikipedia need not be quite as serious as Holy Writ or the instructions for defusing a bomb.Noroton 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and start the article at around 6'3-6'4 so people like Lou Ferrigno, who were known to be tall for their profession could be included. --Dudo2 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what would be the rationale for choosing 6'3" instead of 6'1"? Why is one more encyclopedic than another? Sounds like you're making a synthesis of your own wp:original research for inclusion criteria here. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again. The proposal that we can og by "List of tallest men" is actually the same article, all these people are among the tallest in the world. The three letters don't make any difference. The proposal that this should be "notably tall men" is also going to be indiscriminate. Who's notably tall? What does this mean? I've seen men in America who are 6'1" be told "hey you're tallll." That's not particularly tall, but if someone wrote it down somewhere, suddenly "their tallness has been considered notable." This would probably make the lists worse instead of better, since when it was 6'5", while this was arbitrary, it wasn't painfully long. "Noted for tallness" would extend down under 6'. No way. Anybody can be claimed to be notable for anything; it would only take one short journalist to add heaps of people to these lists. Such citations of "notable tallness" can surely be noted in the subjects' articles if someone would like to include them. No need for that information to be lost, but it doesn't constitute inclusion criteria. — coelacan talk — 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a useless list, and I just can't see how one can objectively determine what is tall. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia should really be stripped of all its lists. It's been out of control. Usedup 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, let's turn Wikipedia into the driest of academic exercises. Squeeze anything interesting out of it. Let no reader ever crack a smile, raise his eyelids any higher or have her heart beat any faster than a dull thud. We truly need to squelch these eruptions of normal human interest. I'm sure that when we do, we'll all feel more important, more dignified, more serious. Of course, we'll still have the porn-star, pokemon and video game articles, so it won't be a total loss. (These comments don't mean to imply any description of the sentiments of Usedup or any other particular editor here, just a strong suspicion that these sentiments seem to be behind some editors' comments.) Noroton 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your strong suspicions are probably off-target concerning most of us here. I haven't got a problem with amusing or merely interesting lists or articles, as long as they are objectively bounded. These lists may be interesting to look at, but they continually erupt in very heated arguments and a lot of bad blood arises as a result of them. The reason is that there are no, and can be no, objective criteria for when to stop the list, and so arbitrary measures are taken to choose a cutoff. Because they're arbitrary, everyone's reason is as "good" as anyone else's. For example, I want the list of men to stop at 6'5" or 6'6" to keep it short, Dudo2 wants it to be 6'3" so Lou Ferrigno will be included, and we've had others arguing that it needs to be low enough for Hans Christian Anderson, I've seen requests for 5'10" and 2 meters, and no one is "right", and no one is "wrong". If it were something objective, someone would be "wrong" and they could get over their pride and acquiesce to that, but in this case everybody's "right" and things get heated because no-one should have to back down and give in. On Wikipedia we have WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS policies that everyone has to abide by, and these policies are fair and apply to everyone so they defuse most situations. But these lists exist outside of policy. There is no verifiable objective way to bound the lists, and policy doesn't come into play to cool things. I'm saying that since the policies can't be made to apply to these lists, the lists have to go. I don't want to scrub Wikipedia of intersting content, but I do want our battles here to be about objective things that can eventually reach a conclusion, instead of screaming at each other in the dark. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton's mirthful comment hits the nail on the head.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.