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. --Coredesat 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English word -- belongs in dictionary, not encyclopedia. Article is purely dictionary content. Autocracy 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article is written fairly encyclopedicly (if that's a word), and since you is (pretty much the only time you can say you is correctly in a sentence) such a common word, it might be worthy of an article. On the other hand, single words usually aren't included in wikipedia, rather they are put in wiktionary. I'm not completely sure on this one. --דניאל - Danielrocks123contribs 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is already covered at Wiktionary. EliminatorJRTalk 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, as written, is fairly encyclopedic. Antman -- chat 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is fairly encyclopedic and it wouldn't really be a good idea to trash an article that people have put years of work in. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, are you sure you looked beyond the first page of the history? Because the earliest listing says this article has been around since February 2004 - over three years! --Canley 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... now I feel like an idiot. I could have sworn that there was only one page last time I checked... or maybe I really am an idiot. Whatever. --דניאל - Danielrocks123contribs 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article is eligible for deletion if it "can never be other then a dictionary definition". The article as written is already an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wrong. An article is eligible for deletion if it is a dictionary article, of whatever length, or if it is a stub encyclopaedia article that cannot be expanded, renamed, refactored, or merged into a full encyclopaedia article. The two are quite separate reasons for deletion, and should not be conflated. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Stubs with no possibility for expansion. Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I'm on the fence with this one. Although it is a definition, which would belong in Wiktionary, it has a lot of encyclopedic content that would not find its way into Wiktionary. Give some more reasons and I'll have another think. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a dicdef, since it includes etymology. Natalie 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology is canonical dictionary article content. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which explains what can be found in dictionary articles. Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of great info here. The article has progressed well beyond the limits of a dictionary. It would be a shame to delete it. JKeene 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of information presented in an encyclopedic format. Way more than a dictionary definition. Needs references though, and instances of use such as Time magazine awarding Person of the Year to "You". --Canley 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems like well beyond a dictdef, and contains encyclopedic context. I see no problem with it in any way. (|--UlTiMuS 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just a dicdef.--TBCΦtalk? 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously the 2006 Person of the Year is notable. This needs references but is a decent overview, well beyond a dicdef. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely an encyclopedic article when it goes beyond its definition to origin and uses. Mkdwtalk 08:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that this is not "purely dictionary content"; it reads more like an encyclopedia article than a dictionary entry, which would contain a lot less information than this article. Were the article an unexpandable dictionary definition, then yes, it should go; however, that is not the case with this article. Kyra~(talk) 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating unexpandable stub encyclopaedia articles and dictionary articles. Please read the policy that you linked to. It explains how the two are not the same. Dictionary articles don't belong here, whatever length they are (and they can be quite long). Conversely, stub encyclopaedia articles are not dictionary articles, and we delete/refactor/rename/merge unexpandable stub encyclopaedia articles because they are unexpandable stubs, not because they are dictionary articles (which they are not). Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely encyclopedic. This page goes beyond a dictionary definition and contains extended information that put it well beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. - AnasTalk? 10:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. Everyking 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative and encyclopedic. The article is more than a dictionary entry. - Microtony 12:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a long dictionary entry with some not really pertinent material to me. In other words, if it was an 'encyclopedic' article, what would it be about? The second person singular and plural pronoun in English, historical aspects of the usage of singular and plural in English, Plural forms in different European languages, the Time person (not pronoun!) of the year 2006? So transwiki, split, merge, but do not keep as it is. Tikiwont 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bulk of this entry is a padded out dictionary entry (i.e. definitions, pronunciation, etymology). The part about 'thou' is another word entirely (i.e. another dicdef) and the example using thy (=yours) is not about you. Finally, the whole section 'Plural forms in other European languages' in not even about 'you'. Emeraude 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is at least as encyclopedic as our articles on A, B, C, and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nomination SyBerWoLff 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Word has a history beyond what goes into a dictionary, especially in other languages, a factor which is covered in the later sections of the article. For example the social and cultural differences between the French "vous" and "tu" is information which belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Sjakkalle(Check!) 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely correct, which is why we have the article T-V distinction and do not need this. As I said, the foreign language parts are not about the word 'you', and without this issue we are left with a dicdef. Emeraude 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Recury 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's obviously a well-developed article.-- danntmTC 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Despite being a fairly well-written and comprehensive article it does not seem to belong in an encyclopedia. I would agree that it would belong in Wiktionary. Frickeg 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat, a demonstrative pronoun, was transwikied to Wiktionary. She has an entire section about controversy, which goes beyond a dictionary definition and etymology. They and Them have the information in their Wikipedia articles present in their Wiktionary articles. It (pronoun) discusses the word's use in literature and as a rhetorical device, also going beyond a standard dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although about a word, it goes into the subject much more deeply than a dictionary entry would. Encyclopedic. -R. S. Shaw 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this and the other pronouns mentioned are a critical part of the English language, and this article goes beyond simple usage and etymology info, explaining its complicated singular/plural relationship with "thou" and such. I'd say it's fairly encyclopedic. Krimpet 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - potential for being (and right now, is) more than just a dicdef, not "just a word", and you can find Interesting Sourced Stuff about it easily. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete It is written like a dictionary article. Etymology? Pronounciation? Derived terms? See the No article, which is a disambiguation page with a short definition on top of no. That is what the Yes article should be, unless there is something very encyclopedic. But get rid of the dictionary stuff if it stays. Other than that, DELETE IT!!! -Jimbo Wales (just kidding - A•N•N•Afoxlover 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The. Basically I think the criteria boils down to whether the discussion of etymology and parallel in other languages justifies an encyclopdiea article. Some of the keep requests here seem persuasive in favor of it, but the "The" article's redirect provides some arguments against. I personally am now hovering around "Neutral." What would be great is if somebody could cite precedent from another "published" encyclopedia. Autocracy 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other encyclopedias like Encarta and Britannia don't have "you" articles, but they also don't have "they" or "them" articles. - PoliticalJunkie 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The, the person who redirected the article said "long consensus has established ... [if the article fails] to discuss characteristics such as controversy regarding its use, its rise [in] popular culture, ... [or] their ilk", it is a dictionary entry. This article doesn't touch upon any of those and is just an extended dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a part about Time naming the person of the year "you" were added, I think the article deserves inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interesting and encyclopedically-written article, but it's still fundamentally and entirely an expanded dictionary entry. It discusses the etymology and history of the word, but unless you want to see similar articles on literally thousands of other words, this should go. As for the Time thing, let's use the following measure: if Time had instead awarded "Person of the Year" to "Time Readers" (which is basically what "You" means in that context), would they get an article of their own?Sarcasticidealist 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prophesize and say that they would, but they should. A single article called Time readers would do no harm, if it worked from the sources- the article itself and the resulting media coverage. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, actually. Not so good that I'm changing my vote, but good enough that I'm going to have to do some more thinking.Sarcasticidealist 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up to now I have assumed some of the people mentioning the Time person of the year thing were joking. Since it appears they weren't, I just want to emphasize that the Time thing cannot justify keeping an article named "You" on Wikipedia. The Time piece's usage of the word "you" in its title is just that--usage--and it's a dictionary's job, not an encyclopedia's, to document usage of words. If the Time Person-of-the-year-2006 had to be strictly identified, it would be the public or the online public. That the piece is a commentary on the public's use of the Internet is evident from reading it and the commentary it engendered such as this. It has nothing to do with "you," or you, or me, or Time readers as has been suggested (though the piece was addressed to Time readers). We can write material on Time's person of the year 2006 on Wikipedia, but it wouldn't be at You. Pan Dan 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's not a typical usage. Moreover, coming up with our own title for Time's selection would border on OR- Time used "You." BTW, this is not to say that Time's choice was a good one. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume for the sake of argument that the article You did contain information about the Time 2006 Person of the Year write-up and reaction to it. Then that would be appropriate Wikipedia content, and the right course of action per WP:WINAD would be to transwiki and remove the rest of the content--about the meaning, usage, and etymology of "you"--and to insert a ((wiktionarypar)) tag. The important point I should have focused on in my previous comment is that the Time 2006 Person of the Year content has nothing to do with the Wiktionary material about "you," just as Time's 2000 Person of the Year (Bush) has nothing to do with the etymology of the name Bush. (BTW, on OR, I wasn't suggesting that we report in Wikipedia article space that "the online public" is Time's 2006 Person of the Year. I agree, that would be OR unless sources outside of Wikipedia have said it.) Pan Dan 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say an appropriate title for the person of the year would be something like You (Time's 2006 Person of the Year), analogous to You (Radiohead song) etc. This is disambiguation and not OR. Actually You (disambiguation) has an entry for the person which does not lead to You at all. --Tikiwont 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article through grammatical articles like Grammatical person, looking for information I finally found under Generic you, through this article's links. Could You be beefed up by conflating Generic you and any other similar grammatical articles? Wikipedia's grammar articles are very helpful, and losing this one would likely make chains of inquiry like mine (searched for "Second person" --> "Grammatical Person" --> "You" --> "Generic You") more difficult. LaPrecieuse 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and due rewrite Clearly a notable topic and could be written in a scholarly manner, but this version is bad. It needs more sources and then it could be an encyclopediac article.--Sefringle 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep By all means, clean the page up; but don't delete it. Acalamari 20:36, 13 March 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.