Deletion of List of tall men

Comment: We don't keep lists where the standards for inclusion amount to original research and personal opinion or that would be too large and diffuse if populated accordingly.  This one is highly subjective: it includes retired basketball player Charles Barkley but not currently active Kobe Bryant and actually would extend to include a large percentage of basketball players in all professional leagues and Olympic teams, past and present.  It would also encompass large numbers of American football players, Sumo wrestling|sumo wrestlers, and competitors from various other sports.  Potentially that would mean thousands of -worthy entries just in the field of athletics.  Complicating this is the fairly common practice of exaggerating heights and weights in official team publications, which leads to contradictory data.  Although we don't delete for edit wars the months-long dispute at this page is symptomatic of these insoluble dilemmas.  I tried to help the editors work through these problems a while back; I no longer believe that is feasible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I wish to draw a parallel between this frequently maligned list and the magnificent article List of unusual deaths, another frequent target for casually destructive deletion hawks.  I would sound ridiculous if I were to enter an afd debate for the deaths article shouting in a condescending tone, "but what does ''unusual'' really mean?  Isn't that ''subjective''?  I know all you idiots find this article ''interesting'' (please refer to the set-in-stone policy ), but unfortunately, what one group of people might consider unusual might appear ordinary to another.  This article has to go, no matter how well sourced it becomes."  In cases like this, whining that a certain adjective must have a precise, independetly verified definition arrived at through scientific rigor is a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself.  NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.  Trust people to build consensus; they'll decide what tall means, and the meaning will fluctuate from time to time, as well it should
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per precedent. Whilst |consunsus can change, I would say that repeat nominations over a short period are probably not warranted, and may get to a point when it gets |disruptive. I tend to agree that the height set may be arbitrary, and I don't think 6ft 7in is really that tall - considering there are/have been people who exceeded 8ft, but then it's not a huge list by any means, and the current height barrier can be moved upwards if too many start appearing on the list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:POINT)

Comment: refangle, source with reliable sources describing the people as "tall" (then it's both accurate and varifiable). Perhaps rename to "List of notable people above the 99th percentile of height" or "List of notable people who have been described as tall" or somesuch cludgy name if the name is the key objection. This may be "arbitrary", but is also a potentially useful list so . There should at least be a list describing "talling living people"-type-people. Oh, and before anyone shouts at me for using my IP, registering is not a requirement and this is a discussion. Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: The most common reason for deletion I'm seeing is that any inclusion criterion for the article would be "arbitrary".  However, all you really mean by that is that there are a great many alternatives.  '''So what?!?!'''  In that sense, every WP policy and guideline is ''arbitrary'', as there are many possible alternatives to them.  For example, instead of not allowing |original research, WP could allow it.  There is nothing wrong with an arbitrary criterion for inclusion, as long as it is reached by '''consensus''' on the article's talk page.  So far, such a discussion (to establish consensus) has not taken place.  Also, my original vote/comment is about 10-12 votes above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This list and related ones ('''List of tall/short men/women''' - strike as applicable) are totally subjective. That these people were tall or short is as irrelevant as whether they had ginger hair, beards or a limp. Chategorises people by physical by physical characteristics is |pure trivia. I would not oppose lists of people famous ''for'' being tall or short, but the present list serves no purpose that I can discern. The inclusion criteria is also problematic, as pointed out above, as what is tall or short varies considerably from one geographic are to another
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: no matter what "keep" rationales are provided, the fact remains that this is a subjective list, and thus is unsuitable for inclusion as its very existence requires |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: potentially enormous, unmaintainable, and I'll be very surprised if anyone comes up with an NPOV way of defining tall. #INDISCRMINATE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)