Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Seems like a possible merge is in order, but that's not a particularly clear position in this debate. -Splash talk 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004
Without the (copyvio) list of people, it's no use as an aticle. Originally deleted after being listed on 2006-02-04. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-25t20:26z
 * Comment: Only the list was deleted. Just clearing up any lingering, possibly prejudicial, confusion: this form of the article has not been deleted before. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it's a useful stub, and I think it could be fleshed out into a better article. Even as a stub, the article says that it was published on April 20, that 2004 was their first annual such list, and the article describes how the names were arranged. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some below have suggested merging. This suggestion is fine with me. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per numerous precedents. A sentence in Time magazine covers the subject adequately. Just zis Guy you know? 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and associated pages. As with other magazine lists recently, this is copyrighted to the respective publishers and authors of the original article.  It is also subjective, POV and unencyclopædic.   (aeropagitica)   23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read it? The list isn't included, and it's not a copyright violation. It also isn't a POV problem to describe TIME Magazine's POV.
 * Delete this and the 2005 sibling too. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think Person of the Year should be deleted as well? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no copyvio here, as there is no list!  While the article is currently a stub and cannot ever be as thorough as it should be sans copyright law, I'm willing to trust that it could turn into something rather useful.  Quadell is quite correct that, even as it stands right now, it accurately describes what the list is and how the names are arranged.  This is of at least some use. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a useful referrent point for other articles that might be about people on the list. Stubs can grow, that being a prime Wikipedia mechanism.  The article is certainly about a more notable topic than 90 percent of the lists that proliferate around here.  If you feel the article is PoV, then don't delete it, edit it to make it neutral PoV, that is the Wikipedia way. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (see also endorsement of user Volatile's vote)
 * Weak Keep. I believe the article is still useful (provides something to link to when mentioned in articles about those recognized by the list). Provided that the stub gets cleaned up a bit, the stub should remain. I'm not familiar with this list, but if Time publishes it on a yearly basis, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a general article "TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People" and have all descendent lists (...of 2003, ...of 2004, ...of 2005,etc.) redirect there? Volatile 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I endorse this suggestion to merge into a single general article. Hu 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but only if the single article explains differences in criteria among the lists, if any, perhaps containing a subsection on each yearly lists (if differences are readily apparent). - Jersyko &middot;talk 14:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge into a related list of influential people lists. Karm  a  fist  20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As mentioned before, the copyvio has been eliminated, thus there is no valid reason to delete.  Volatile makes a good point that a move to a more general name with pointers to each years list might be a "good move", but that is a different discussion.--Blainster 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Volatile's suggestion.--nixie 00:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy and (aeropagitica). --kingboyk 00:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Merge per Volatle. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.