Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:20, 17 October 2008 editEdison (talk | contribs)Administrators53,890 edits →Joseph Wurzelbacher← Previous edit Revision as of 00:22, 17 October 2008 edit undoEdison (talk | contribs)Administrators53,890 edits →Another courtesy breakNext edit →
Line 126: Line 126:
*'''Keep''' Notability is established by number of third party reliable sources. Historical nature of presidential debates nullifies any ] argument. -- ] (]) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Notability is established by number of third party reliable sources. Historical nature of presidential debates nullifies any ] argument. -- ] (]) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Highly notable, pivotal talking point of third presidential debate. ] (]) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Highly notable, pivotal talking point of third presidential debate. ] (]) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' McCain's use of him in the debate, and the ensuing controversy has made him notable. 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> *'''Keep''' and rename to ]. McCain's use of him in the debate, and the ensuing controversy has made him notable. 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
**No that makes McCains use of him notable per ]--] (]) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) **No that makes McCains use of him notable per ]--] (]) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
on the move|talk]] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> on the move|talk]] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 00:22, 17 October 2008

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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. Misplaced Pages is not the news. OhNoitsJamie 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Jauerback/dude. 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages page. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
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. ". Jauerback/dude. 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages about their fifteen minutes of fame. --Amwestover (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)
  • Keep With Joseph Wurzelbacher’s interview on Good Morning America and his possible connections to Robert Wurzelbacher, son-in-law to Charles Keating, means possible manipulation by McCain campaign. It is too soon to talk of deletion of this entry Tinakori Road (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Delete what exactly? Even the redirects to the debate article? That's fairly absurd considering the prevalent of this story and Misplaced Pages's reputation as a go-to site for information. Moncrief (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

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

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep Meets all Misplaced Pages requirements for notability and BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 . Rename as suggested elsewhere - it is "Jo the Plumber" who is notable - Joseph Wurzelbacher is part of the facts associated with he article. --Matilda 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)--Matilda 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
These articles suggesting deeper significance behind the question, in my mind, make KEEP all the more evident as the correct course of action. --Falcorian  21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
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 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. We shouldn't let our fairly straightforward notability and sourcing policies, which this article clearly meets the letter of, get shoved aside because of some vague feeling that this person isn't the type of person who deserves a Misplaced Pages article. It's true that his sudden rise to notability was pretty arbitrary, driven more by the winds of the news cycle and the political needs of campaigns and opposition researchers than anything else. Nonetheless, this is a complex and developing topic where a synoptic encyclopedia approach is helpful and is not equal to a normal 1-off news event.--ragesoss (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have yet to here any arguments that refute the fact that this is a clear case of one event notability. OhNoitsJamie 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - What is so hard about WP:BLP1E. Grsz 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - WP:BIO1E Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are more and more details emerging about this guy making his story and the events around increasingly interesting. Maybe JtP can be merged into the debate or a campaign related page, but we should the stand alone page get fleshed out before making a merge decision.Sturmovik (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename - Renaming this to "Joe The Plumber" would be most ideal, don't you think this will become a pop-culture reference now? 67.170.118.79 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Nick
  • Delete per epic violation of WP:BLP1E. I can certainly understand why quite a few editors here are in favor of keeping the article, however. –Juliancolton 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets notability requirements through multiple independent sources. We don't delete articles around here just because they are embarrassing to one's political canidate of choice. Jtrainor (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This individual has inserted himself into the public eye and discourse, first by addressing the candidate in the presence of the media, later, and more significantly, by lending himself to at least three interviews. Therefore, he meets the criteria for biography of a living person in that his public personage is now due to more than one event. The article thus far is objective and truthful, based on easily verifiable sources, and does not contain original material. Finally, the individual is clearly in the national spotlight, and his comments and purported persona have influenced the national presidential dialog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huedog (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
  • Delete, for now anyway. This article is classic WP:BLP1E, but if he becomes more notable later, by all means recreate it. Coemgenus 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable due to press coverage...press coverage...and yet more press coverage. Sure, this burst of coverage is a ludicrous distraction in political terms, but the notability is definitive. Everyking (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. Sahasrahla (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This definitely will be notable, and more facts are developing about Joe. Jonyyeh (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete', this guy is not notable for anything substantive except for his name being continuously mentioned at the debate. 71.252.43.131 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-Is notable at the moment, but in 3 or four weeks time, he may be completely forgotten about. Should we then creat an article for Dan Quayle's Potatoe kid. Shambalala (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Joe the Plumber. Notable symbolic topic related to a major election, akin to Harry and Louise. That he happens to be a real person is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean this has to be strictly viewed through a biographical lense, i.e. the topic transcends BLP1E. -- Kendrick7 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - true political campaign Americana, both before and after. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's the subject of extensive national media coverage. As well, the actual Misplaced Pages article about him is the subject of national news coverage, as was seen in the October 16, 2008, NBC Nightly News. How foolish Misplaced Pages will look when people come here to find something mentioned on the national news and it isn't even here. Siberian Husky (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep. Misplaced Pages is not wikinews, but the coverage is sufficiently massive for this to be on Misplaced Pages. --Ezeu (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the campaign article. This week's news is next weeks fish and chips wrapping. -- Mattinbgn\ 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep Highly notable, pivotal talking point of third presidential debate. Briancollins (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Joe the Plumber. 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)

  • Keep I wanted to know more about this guy, and came to Misplaced Pages. If this article had been deleted, I would have been disappointed. He's obviously notable enough for me to look for his Misplaced Pages page. --Dlugar (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not really sure where to go on this. At present, as a current-events reference, it's a useful article to have; I, for one, wasn't sure after hearing all those "Joe the Plumber" references in the debate whether that was an actual real person or just some contrived fictional example, so being able to find out who that really is on Misplaced Pages was very useful. However, as an actual person (as opposed to his role as an example cited by candidates) he's probably not sufficiently notable for a bio, meaning that the article would perhaps better be placed under "Joe the Plumber" rather than his real name to avoid WP:BLP issues. Only time will tell whether either the person or the concept will have enough "legs" to be permanently of note rather than just being a temporary news item. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N by having national news coverage in October for his anti-Obama views and in an unrelated matter having national news coverage and prolonged discussion in the last presidential debate, as well as in McCain's speeches following the debate. Edison (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Categories: