Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006)


 * 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. John254 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't believe the recognition of "You" as Time's 2006 Person of the Year is worthy of its own article. I understand there is no relevant person article, but my point still stands. --  tariq abjotu  22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of a category called Time magazine Persons of the Year demonstrates that the magazine's choices for it's "man" or "person" of the year are considered notable. The article about "You" as the person of the year includes the criticism of that particular editorial decision.  Needless to say, I can't take offense because it wasn't about "Me".  Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with the notability of Time's Person of the Year feature. I believe, for example, that the naming of a subject as Time's Person/Man/Object of the Year ought to be noted in each subjects' article. This question is over whether this should have its own article or whether the 2006 recognition should simply be noted in some other article (like Web 2.0). --  tariq abjotu  00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's actually one of those that will likely be remembered for a long time, like the time they named the PC. In this form, of course, no (two blogs?). But There was plenty of coverage of the incident including a bevy of critical commentary. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that it is worthy, both in isolation, and as part of the series of annual articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per everyone, but that's a weaker keep than everyone else. WP:NOT is one thing to bear in mind, although it doesn't apply here in the same way as it does in many other cases.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge into the short Person of the Year article. This would meet any concern some readers might be confused that there isn't a Wikipedia article for the subject that year. Just because Time makes a(nother) idiotic editorial decision doesn't mean we have to blindly follow it. This one was almost universally panned. For years, the magazine has been using this feature as a way to sell magazines at the expense of serious consideration of who has actually been the person who most met the stated criteria (the person who most affected the news of the year). It's silly of us to take their silliness seriously, and it misleads readers into thinking that this subject is worthy of the coverage that a typical Wikipedia article is expected to get. It isn't. It's worth a section of another article. So often with this feature the annual decision isn't journalism, it's marketing, and we can cover it just as well without creating an article that no one is going to independently figure out the name of. Noroton (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: IMHO it was a stupid and infamous choice, but due to the prominence of the award it deserves its own article.  It should not be merged with "You" or "Person of the Year", as it would dilute the importance of these two significant articles.  Kransky (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs more sources, but the topic is notable - I guess that it could be argued that if Time ever picked a previously non-notable person as their person of the year that person would become notable so this article seems reasonable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on, *I* was nominated as person of the year! If that is not notable, I don't know what is... Seriously, this was a well-documented event, and rises above daily news.  It will be better remembered than many other persons of the year.  Famous or infamous, it was newsworthy and is noteworthy. --Aleph-4 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom hasn't provided any deletion rationale other than "not worthy" and no one has in this AfD either. This is the kind of subject that, if properly written, could end up as a main page feature article. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is notable (as it is a departure from a well known publication's practices) and since the other Time Magazine "People of the Year" have articles this one should as well (my opinion is that if it is a Time Magazine "Person of the Year" then that 'person' is automatically notable). Further, since it does not seem to fit into the context of You than I believe it should have its own article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, like all other persons of the year, this choice was covered by many other media. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, I doubt this warrants an article by itself, however, I believe it would be better as section of the Person of the Year page. It is not too long to be an individual section, and (as other Person of the Year choices do not recieve articles of their own) it should not recieve an article of it's own. Additionally, the media attention it recieved is more of a news event. Polarbear97 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As valid as the other 'People of the Year', as the choice was widely covered by print media as part of the Web 2.0 revolution. >< Richard  Ω6  12  19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per everyone else. Also this article has complete merit and as such should be allowed a page. Thanks, H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable topic. — Save_Us _ 229  22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is notable. --Avala (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is clearly a notable article. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2007 (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.