Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:10:06 +0100, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The problem here is that AfD is working as designed. In my opinion, there is certainly room for a list of really tall men on wikipedia. It should however be limited to those who are notable for being tall; which would mean a lower limit of around 2.40 m, and a smaller list of "legendary" tall men, whose names are almost synonymous with "giant", such as Goliath.
And 2.4m comes from?... This is the problem.
It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Perhaps the list could be divided into a number of sublists with different cutoffs, allowing the reader to pick his own preference for what "tall" means? It'd be a crude emulation of allowing people's articles to be tagged and sorted by height.
(And now for my own personal venting of frustration, since that's the thread's subject; yesterday I wanted to find out some information about that "Charlie the Unicorn" cartoon that's been popular on the net for the past few months. A Google search provides an endless list of links to the animation itself with no easy way to find what I actually want to know. A Wikipedia search, on the other hand, provided me exactly what I wanted and a whole bunch more - but only because someone had been repeatedly recreating the deleted article under different names at that moment. It looked like a reasonable and fancruft-free article to me but AfD has spoken and the subject has been salted.)