Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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[edit]

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]
  • Redirect at best, per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS and I have serious BLP concerns about who this article is actually about, as the identity is in issue. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article shouldn't be deleted but redirected per Joe the plumber. The reason it shouldn't be deleted is to avoid it having to go through deletion review should this individual make something of his new found fame. He is an intelligent and well spoken person other than the fact that he's described himself as a "private person" there's a chance that this event could snowball into something more significant for him. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the election, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being used as an example does not make a person notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to [1]. 69.3.80.34 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC) — 69.3.80.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NOT#NEWS and per WP:RECENTISM. No one will care about this guy next week. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any idea that he'll be forgotten soon is crystal balling. 2600 Google News hits make for some pretty strong notability. The guy is getting hugely significant news coverage [2] [3] [4]. These and countless other articles are about HIM, not about the debates. Come on, the guy is holding press conferences and interviews left and right. This meets WP's notability bar times 100. It's also worth noting (per the previous links) that he's being mentioned by both sides in today's campaigning again. It's no more crystal balling for me to say that this guy could become a frequent mention in the campaign than it is for anyone else to say he'll be forgotten in a week. Oren0 (talk) 17:38, 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]
  • Redirect to his section in the debate article. I'm normally a fan of standalone articles, but I think the separate section in the debate article is a fine compromise. He doesn't need his own separate article at this time. Moncrief (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge Per WP:1E. Cover him in the debate article or even the campaign.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 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 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) — Tinakori Road (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. The guy's only notability is being brought up several times during the debate. There's nothing else noteworthy about him (including whatever releation he may have to Keating). WTStoffs (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is Deffinatly Notable. Think of William Hung he got even less air time and still has his own page. I am getting tired of all these debates over articles that very frankly are of great public intrest and should be delt with as such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CelesJalee (talk • contribs) 19:07, Oct 16, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E or Redirect per WTStoffs; does not at this time merit an article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:08, 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • Comment I have yet to here any arguments that refute the fact that this is a clear case of one event notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - What is so hard about WP:BLP1E. GrszX 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - WP:BIO1E Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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[reply]
  • 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 Tropical Cyclone 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) — Huedog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. Sahasrahla (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This definitely will be notable, and more facts are developing about Joe. Jonyyeh (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. -- Kendrick7talk 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - true political campaign Americana, both before and after. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the subject of extensive national media coverage. As well, the actual Wikipedia article about him is the subject of national news coverage, as was seen in the October 16, 2008, NBC Nightly News. How foolish Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Another courtesy break[edit]

  • 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]
    • This man didn't shoot the president he asked a candidate a question.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:11, 17 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)

  • Keep I wanted to know more about this guy, and came to Wikipedia. If this article had been deleted, I would have been disappointed. He's obviously notable enough for me to look for his Wikipedia page. --Dlugar (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • Does history require that we know where the man works, what he owes to uncle sam, who his relatives are, or do we just need to know his impact on the debate.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. "Joe the Plumber" is likely as important in this campaign as Daisy (television advertisement) was in the Johnson-Goldwater campaign of 1964, or Willie Horton was in the Dukakis-Bush campaign of 1988. The carefully chosen and misleading campaign meme is the proper focus of the article.Edison (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is likely that with the media attention this person is getting, and the analysis of the impact on the race, this person will be in the news for a while. And I think they transcend BLP1E. This is iffy to some, but that's my view. The arguments for that view seem stronger to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge and Wait: I agree with the comments above that currently there is no notability to the actual person. There seems to be developing some cultural "concept" of Joe the Plumber that goes beyond the actual person. But, we don't know. And this is the middle of an election, so you get all types of people coming from all over the place. In exactly 3 weeks time, we will have a clear picture. I would rename it now. If not that, then merge it into the article about the debate. What should not happen is deleting potentially important information in the middle of a sensitive election news cycle. 71.107.55.165 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into United States presidential election debates, 2008#October_15:_Third_presidential_debate_.28Hofstra_University_.E2.80.93_Hempstead.2C_New_York.29. This is a clear case of Wikipedia:BLP1E (Articles about people notable only for one event) - this guy is only notable insofar as he served as an example in the third presidential debate, and might as well have been fictional, but he's quite significant in that context. One section can be (and already is) dedicated to him there. Dcoetzee 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This is what B1E was written for. Some guy asked a question and now, because the american political process has an unhealthy fixation with microtrends, personification and man-on-the-street journalism, we have momentary coverage of this guy. 1 year from now nothing will be said about him. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least for now - the news coverage of this is only growing. If it is to be deleted, then wait until it fades from public discourse. 78.151.142.209 (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been getting massive media coverage and easily satisfied WP:N. —Lowellian (reply) 01:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' In regard to the amount of coverage, and probably being the most famous "average joe (sixpack?)" he meets this requirement. --Red3001 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and evaluate later once perspective is gained. Should probably be made into a redirect to the article covering the campaign. Themindset (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does William Figueroa have an article?Jesuschex (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable individual. Too long to be part of the campaign article, it would just split off again because of practical article length issue. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flush it Sorry, Joe, but you are in violation of WP:BLP1E. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodbye - if he becomes notable, then we can have an article; right now, he's about 5 seconds into his proverbial 15 minutes of fame, which surely does not confer notability for our purposes. Note: suggestions that he won't be known next year or next week do not convince me here; notability is not temporary. I am saying he's simply not notable at all. If it changes, we can recreate an article.  Frank  |  talk  01:34, 17 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Wurzelbacher&oldid=1137958031"