Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher

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 for now. Without even vetting the !votes it is clear consensus is mixed. The prevailing argument is that he is only notable for one event, which based on policy is a valid deletion (or in this case redirect) reason. Upon first reviewing this AfD I was tempted to redirect and protect, but after thinking it over and discussing it with other admins I concluded that it would be unwise to do at this point. He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that. BJTalk 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wurzelbacher

Joseph Wurzelbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet WP:BIO standards per one event notability. Wikipedia is not the news. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of the debate dealt with Joe and his concerns. McCain referenced him probably over 2 dozen times. (correction by Chergles: 11 times, Obama referenced him 2 times)

  • KEEP. While probably a one-time event, his name will always be associated with the history of this presidential campaign. As this article evolves over the coming weeks and years with new facts, it will provide a valuable reference. Jamestown (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The election and last night's debate hinged on him. Probably millions believe his original story. Dogru144 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected here as the Joe the Plumber article was. Regardless of how many times anyone says his name, it's still stictly a one event notability issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Q. What's he "famous" for? A. He asked a question. Q. Why was he referenced so many times during the debate? A. He asked a question. Q. Why are there so many articles about him? A. He asked a question. Q. Why is he being interviewed? A. He asked a question.
Sorry, but this is a classic example of WP:BLP1E with a dash of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM no matter how you look at it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is famous for only one thing at some point. Lots of notable people have articles when they're only famous for one thing if that one thing gains them enough coverage (an example off the top of my head is Seung-Hui Cho). The bottom line is that notability (and thus suitability for an article) is determined by the press, not us. The press seems to quite strongly believe that this guy is worthy of coverage. The question "what has this person done to become famous" is the wrong one to ask. What has Paris Hilton done to become famous? How we judge a person's worthiness of news coverage is irrelevant. If the media is covering someone significantly with front page mentions, pictures, and stories, that individual merits a Wikipedia page. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but you're essentially contradicting WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. ". Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least temporarily. This guy is on the front page of every news site this morning. Delete the article next week if you find it doesn't hold up its interest. The article Debra Bartoshevich faced similar debate as a the subject of McCain's noted PUMA ad "Debra" came under public scrutiny in real media. The delete/redirect of Joe the Plumber was premature. There are also a lot of comments on the talk page of the Debates you redirected it to saying that the subject deserves its own article. betsythedevine (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have redirected Joe the Plumber to this article until this AfD gets sorted out. If he's going to have an article, people should be able to find it. Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. He is quite famous right now and is subject to a LOT of press, such as this, this, this, etc etc. Very notable. So, keep. Bstone (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. At best this should be a foot note in campaign and debate articles related to the 2008 presidential race. Numerous people have been mentioned in speeches and debates, I in fact knew someone personally who's been mentioned several times, and I'm sure they and their families would prefer their privacy instead of having people argue over them on Wikipedia about their fifteen minutes of fame. --Amwestover (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's being referred to as the "star" of the debate and so on. Definitely very notable at least right now. Also I think the article should focus on "Joe the Plumber" as used in the campaign and the media - the image - rather than just Joe Wurzelbacher,radek (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect This is yet another example where notability is not inherited. This brief attention is about Obama's response to the question and has nothing to do with anything biographical about "Joe" the questioner. McCain repeated the phrase "Joe the Plumber" as a rhetorical device, but that doesn't mean that this guy who asked the question is notable (and it turns out that his name isn't actually Joe and he isn't even a plumber, so really, how can this be about him? "Joe the Plumber" is being used as an everyman.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:1E, as it is overwhelmingly clear that this person's notoriety is only based upon a single event, and the guidelines for handling such cases are crystal-clear. Not a single one of the "keep" votes legitimately addresses this point, and thus should be disregarded in the final considerations. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he does interviews and props his fame, he should be documented. Elizabeth Smart was "known" for one thing--being abducted and that page was created during her disappearance. This discredits any "Wikipedia not a news site" argument. Clara Peller has a page, the taco bell chihuahua has a page, Willie Horton has a page.
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, especially because of press reports that Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher was fined for tax evasion, he referred in an interview to "taxation without representation", and so he may represent far more than the "average Joe" that he appeared to represent in the debates. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is quickly becoming a mini smear campaign. How soon until the article is deleted or redirected? --Amwestover (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article about the election/campaign or similar. While the guy himself is only notable for one event, meaning he shouldn't have his own article, the information itself IS notable due to the debate itself as well as the many articles about the guy. A redirect would eliminate notable info. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what exactly? Even the redirects to the debate article? That's fairly absurd considering the prevalent of this story and Wikipedia's reputation as a go-to site for information. Moncrief (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of BetsytheDevine Colonel Warden. Had this person been mentioned only once in passing in this event, then his notability would be debatable; however, not only was he mentioned 26 times by both participants, his persona -- a symbol of the small businessman both candidates claim to represent -- is an important factor in this debate, & a needed reference to future students to understand it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.190 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy edit break

  • Redirect - BLP1E suggests that he'll be forgotten in a big hurry, but he's an obvious point of discussion for the debate itself, so any information can be set there and this redirected. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those who aren't aware of it should know that there is now a dedicated section of the debate article, United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008#Joe_the_Plumber, to Joe the Plumber. The redirect can go directly to it. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do anything without prejudice. We have no idea whether anyone will care in a month. Reconsider it then. --B (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't matter that this guy has been on TV shows and in the news; it's just that the candidates happened to have mentioned him a bunch of times. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like this article to be kept but I believe it should be renamed "Joe the Plumber". This was an important part of the debate and has become an important part of the campaign. Let me remind everybody that other debate themes also have their own articles such as 1992's Giant sucking sound and 1988's Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.--William Saturn (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - We already had this debate right after the article was made. He is still only notable for one event, and should not have his own article. He may be a campaign issue, but is not notable enough in and of himself. Scapler (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the debate. I see nothing to indicate that the person is notable, only that his actions with respect to the debate are. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all Wikipedia requirements for notability and BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. Only notable within the context of one news event. Hut 8.5 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This gentleman's story is a study in political and personal irony. He is also apparently not shying away from his newfound fame and seems to be destined to be a footnote to the 2008 presidential campaign who will be referenced for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.120.233 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - referenced article, worldwide notability. I was looking for this article having heard about him on our (Australian) morning news and also having heard him referenced in the Presidential debate. Happy to have the debate reopened soem time in the future as to whether still notable but at this stage , as per comments by others, it is crystal balling to suggest he is not notable. This morning's news observed he was significantly goodgled [5] [6] . Rename as suggested elsewhere - it is "Jo the Plumber" who is notable - Joseph Wurzelbacher is part of the facts associated with he article. --Matilda talk 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)--Matilda talk 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:BLP1E. No need to redirect his full name to the election debates, either; although that's what he's notable for, it's one single event that surely does not define the whole life of the man? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Single event notability where he is not even the main character is absurd. I suppose everyone who asks a question could be listed just as well. WP is for long term notability. Maybe we need articles on each Pokemon just in case someone wants to look them up individually? Or each Beanie Baby? Nope. He has no long-term notoriety or fame. Collect (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this person's story seems to be deepening beyond his question to Obama, and reports on the BBC and in the New York Times suggest his question to Obama might have been coordinated with the RNC or McCain campaign it remains relevant as a separate article. The Guardian observes that the income Wurzelbacher quotes seems selected to be just beyond the trigger level for Obama's middle class tax relief. CApitol3 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These articles suggesting deeper significance behind the question, in my mind, make KEEP all the more evident as the correct course of action. --Falcorian (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New break

  • Delete - This is adequately covered in the article about the election. This article will quickly become filled with stuff that has nothing at all to do with the national debate. Lots of people get interviewed on the tee-vee because they support this candidate or the other, but we don't give them their own pages for it.Demesne Lord (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Joe the Plumber is notable, not Joseph Wurzelbacher is just another fact. There is a difference. The folk hero or agitator (depending on viewpoint) should be the focus of the article. Series of tubes is a similar article in that the term suddenly became notable when it was reported and people still remember it. Chergles (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I endorse the rename proposal - it is "Jo the Plumber" who is notable - Joseph Wurzelbacher is part of the facts associated with he article. --Matilda talk 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another courtesy break

  • Keep As I have argued elsewhere, he has become a huge figure in the election, iconic, along the level of Ayers or Wright. Very significant at present. His argument raised profound issues in the election. It is an interesting irony that he doesn't fall near falling into the higher bracket. Dogru144 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. We can and should wait until the political fallout is over before deciding whether there is a BLP1E issue. The main reason we get worried about BLPs, potential for harm, clearly does not apply in this case since a) he is getting international media coverage and b) he clearly enjoys the coverage and is actively participating with it. There is clearly a large amount of ongoing discussion of Wurzelbacher. The most relevant analogy may be to Debra Bartoshevich. Or as I am fond of pointing out, John Hinckley, Jr. is not BLP1E. In any event, there's nothing that says we cannot reevaluate a few weeks from now (say after this election). Prior action will be likely to be premature. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do people even try to follow WP policies anymore? This is clearly a one-event issue and not worthy of an article. Additionally, most of the article is attacking him and serves no purpose other than to marginalize McCain's argument against Obama's tax policies. Arzel (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not wikinews, but the coverage is sufficiently massive for this to be on Wikipedia. --Ezeu (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the campaign article. This week's news is next weeks fish and chips wrapping. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by number of third party reliable sources. Historical nature of presidential debates nullifies any WP:RECENT argument. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable, pivotal talking point of third presidential debate. Briancollins (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. McCain's use of him in the debate, and the ensuing controversy has made him notable. 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dems on the move (talk • contribs)

on the move|talk]] • contribs)

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.