Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher

Joseph Wurzelbacher

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 15:52, 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.

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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 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. --Rodhull andemu 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)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOT#NEWS and per WP:RECENTISM. No one will care about this guy next week. Jauerback^dude?/_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. Jauerback^dude?/_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. ". Jauerback^dude?/_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]

Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008 per WP:BLP1E. Only notable in the context of that debate. Sandstein 18:26, 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 per nom. and others.--JayJasper (talk) 18:34, 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)[reply]