Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heights of United States presidential candidates

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:03Z

List of heights of United States presidential candidates

List of heights of United States presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

Since there is a present mania for deleting cruft concerning government leaders, this seemed about the cruffiest. Not a notable topic of any but the most trivial interest, per the now-deleted List of Philippine Presidents by parentage, for example Fishhead64 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as listcruft which, if printed out, would be as long as President... um... Flakeloaf 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a referenced article on the topic of the common wisdom that the taller candidate always wins the election. Otto4711 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:V clearly met with nearly 30 footnotes. cab 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The issue of height in presidential elections makes for a relevant and interesting discussion. In addition, the article fulfills
  WP:V. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, plus, this is one of the finest examples of trivia that I have seen. Just because trivia might garner attention, it does not make the trivia encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hope the trend to create such a lists won't expand to other body parts. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it sounds trivial, but clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. Inappropriate use of the term "cruft" - this is certainly not fancruft. --Canley 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable topic as there are multiple independent published works. --- RockMFR 04:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much debate goes on as to what impact height has on success. Mathmo ^Talk 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC
• Keep As per Mathmo. Height is relevant unlike lists of presidents' middle names etc.
  Jules1975 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Seems to meet criteria of
  Presidential pets, many of whom appear to have their own page. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• My rationale is the same as it was when this content was at
  List of United States Presidents by height order (AfD discussion). Keep. Uncle G 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep could be expanded or merged, the sortable table is flawed so I put the old table back in. The sortable table showed Coolidge as the shortest President at 5'11 instead of Madison at 5'4. That was the only thing I saw wrong with the article. Jjmillerhistorian 01:41, 10 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.