From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Decision endorsed, no consensus to overturn. Discussion below is roughly in favor of BJ's idea, and further discussion is highly unlikely to tip this the other way. I appologize to those who did not get a chance to comment. I could make a much longer statement in regards to this close, and will if asked, but this is the only part of it that would matter anyways. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)| AfD 2)

Close does not follow Wikipedia policy. Closer admits in his close that the article violates both WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E but that he deprecated it because of There Is No Deadline and WP:Ignore All Rules. Wikipedia is NOT your local newspaper or a tabloid. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn and take it back to AFD. It was closed after less than a day. Why the hurry? Especially as the consensus wasn't at all clear. -- How do you turn this on ( talk) 01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    I don't think anybody disagrees with the early close. Leaving the AfD to run served little purpose, all arguments had been exhausted and it was turning into a vote. If my close is overturned it should just be redirected. BJ Talk 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm inclined to agree that where there is a situation like this, the article should be redirected and then reassessed in a week (or however long), rather than leaving the article as-is and reassessing in the same amount of time. I'd also argue that there was, on the balance of it, more support for a redirect than there was to keep the article. Daniel ( talk) 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I support the closer's action. It's out-of-process, but I believe it would enhance objectivity to reconsider the subject in a calmer time, as long as it's no more than a few weeks from now. Dcoetzee 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • But BLP urges conservatism, so shouldn't we redirect it now and then re-evaluate whether to have an article in a week, rather than keeping the article in the meantime? Daniel ( talk) 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • BLP urges conservatism primarily with regard to unsourced negative contributions about living people. Those should continue to be stripped from the article; but BLP1E is quite another matter. Dcoetzee 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Either a redirect or a delete and salt for now. To slightly alter the words of the GodKing "We can live without this until after the election, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it". George The Dragon ( talk) 01:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Brian Peppers was never mentioned by a Presidential candidate (or any other public official that I know of) even once, much less 25 times in one debate. Nor, as far as I know, did his article ever get over 60,000 hits in 2 days. Even then, deletion was a near-run thing, and there was never any full consensus to remove that article. *** Crotalus *** 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The article violates BLP1E specifically (this is actually debated, there was a large number of keep votes but I personally agree that it does), not BLP in general. BLP1E directs us to cover the event, not the person. Simply moving the article to "Joe the Plumber" and removing unneeded personal details would do that. The spirit of BLP is to "do no harm", I don't see how keeping an article for a short period of time on a subject that is currently receiving massive international media attention can cause harm. My close was just an appeal for everybody to let the dust settle, then holding the AfD so it can be conducted orderly fashion and actually be closed based off consensus. BJ Talk 01:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I commented above, but in support of my position just wanted to link my new essay User:Dcoetzee/The value of recentism. Dcoetzee 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn It's admitted in the close that it violates WP:BLP1E. The close should be based on what's correct, not on what's "easiest"-- Cube lurker ( talk) 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see why you would delete this article, after the candidates themselves no single person has made more headlines through out this entire campaign than Sam Wurzelbacher. His impact on the race itself has yet to be seen but like it or not this man has earned the 15 min. lime light and therefore an entry on the Wiki. EOM*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.190.43 ( talk) 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least temporarily. I thought the close decision that BJ made was a masterful compromise. Both within Wikipedia and outside it, people are very interested in this topic. Look at the page history, more than 500 edits already. Look at the talk page, multiple new visitors commenting that they appreciate the article's existence. Also, I think at least some of the Redirect "votes" last time were to re-direct to "Joe the Plumber." If the consensus is not clear, I think the article should be kept. If you overturn, the next step should be re-discussion, not just flipping to the opposite conclusion. betsythedevine ( talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment, I don't think this case fits WP:BLP1E. The one event was his conversation with Obama, recorded by news cameras. The next event was that his name and story dominated the third Presidential debate. The next event was that he was the subject of a widely played video ad and a poster-child for McCain/Palin attacks on Obama tax plan. Meanwhile "Joe the Plumber" has become a meme being tacked onto all kinds of other stuff. The next event, not yet included in the article though it should be, is pushback against media revelations about Joe the Plumber and efforts to blame Obama for what many see as media attacks. The original notoriety came from one event, but I don't see that really still applies. betsythedevine ( talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn closure and reopen the debate. There was no justification for the early close. Robust debate was continuing and should not have been cut short. This clearly did not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Rossami (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect to the Presidential debates article. This poor sap is just in the temporary dazzle of the media's spotlight, any long term notability will be linked to the debates article. Let's not make this a case of where the news media goes Wikipedia is sure to follow. We can do better than that, can't we? RMHED ( talk) 02:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2008. The fact alone that the closing admin noted in his statement that the article is a violation of BLP should set off alarms. We don't keep things that violate BLP just to placate the drama-whores (for lack of a better term). - auburnpilot talk 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep permanently. Contrary to a POV above, maintenance of this article is not something we should address after the election. It is acutely relevant right now. I suggest this not to "placate the drama-whores," whomever they may be, but to try to satisfy people turning to Wikipedia for more detail on this new political icon. The article also has lasting value beyond this election cycle. Joe the Plumber is likely to be permanently relevant as a cultural catchphrase, joining Joe Six-Pack in discussions beyond the history of elections or electoral debates. Covering the concept and not the person, as has been suggested above, is not appropriate. The details of Mr. Wurzelbacher's person and views are part of what has made him famous or infamous in this context - an "average Joe" with specific positions which may or may not be in his own self-interest, being held up as representative of a large cross-section of voters. Without that information, future Wikipedia readers will be in no position to fully understand why his sudden celebrity is so controversial. As to concerns re his privacy, Mr. Wurzelbacher has voluntarily granted many press interviews and is scheduled to do the Sunday political talk shows two days from now. — LisaSmall T/ C 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename. Joe Wurzelbacher is not notable, but "Joe the Plumber" is. NPR was interviewing a linguist the other day about how "Joe the Plumber" has entered the American Lexicon as a new way to describe the typical middle class American. The term is now bigger than Joe Wurzelbacher.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect. This guy's 15 minutes are up. He is notable only in the context of the debate, and even the debate doesn't have its own article. Personal details about the guy are irrelevant, so there's nothing here that can't be covered in a brief paragraph elsewhere. - R. fiend ( talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close - Most the arguments against this article revolve around WP:BLP1E, however that notion is fundamentally flawed as BLP1E clearly states that its subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual" however with Mr. Wurzelbacher's numerous interviews on television and in the papers, he is hardly a low-profile person right now. Case in point, 39 minutes ago CNN broke the news that Senator McCain has invited Mr. Wurzelbacher to join him on the campaign trail (see McCain calls Joe the Plumber, invites him on the trail). While Mr. Wurzelbacher may look like an essentially non-notable figure at first blush, he has irrevocably changed the presidential election in much the same way that Willie Horton changed the `88 campaign, or Amber Frey changed the Scott Peterson murder trial. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 03:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the close. "Joe the Plumber" has become a dominant theme of the 2008 presidential campaign, with both candidates going on about him every day. Deleting the article smacks of censorship. There are multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N. I do not see a WP:BLP1E problem when the subject is willing to appear on national news shows day after day. This meme presented by the McCain campaign, that the Obama tax policies will hurt small businesses, is the attempted Willie Horton of 2008, and it is highly appropriate to present accurate and well referenced sources to provide the encyclopedic information that readers seek. Edison ( talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article—he's a tremendously notable subject, and this is an excellent example of why "BLP1E" is so dumb. Everyking ( talk) 03:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep the closing admin was right to close the AfD since there were no valid reasons for deletion. BLP1E does not apply because Wurzelbacher has not remained "a low-profile individual," he has done many interviews and has been the subject of countless political TV and radio shows. Frank Anchor Talk to me 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. Very notable. -- OceanWatcher ( talk) 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - "Save the drama for your mamma" close after one day was correct. There was plenty of input to make a decision and no need for another four days. Obviously there is enough reliable source material. WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply to someone who thrust themselves into the national public through interviews and whose entire life is written about in reliable sources. November 5, 2008, the day after United States presidential election, 2008 is just around the corner. Feel free to list at AfD3 after the November 4, 2008 election. -- Suntag ☼ 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep JP is a memorable historical footnote in a memorable election. He is memorable because of who he is in fact in combination with how he was presented. Erxnmedia ( talk) 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article— John McCain phoned Joe: [1]; "Joe" is a tremendously notable subject, not only of " I Have a Dream," but a philosophy of how a simple man without distinction of race, color and religious credo, can be Googled (like me, Florentino Floro, a jobless Filipino dwarf judge [2]] who rents a dilapidated house in Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines, since 1991), not only because of the notability of the subject-persona, but because of immortality in political- judicial history, respectively. [3]-- Florentino floro ( talk) 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. The closing was proper, and I think it was right. Suntag is right. The one-event rule hardly seems to apply because Wurzelbacher doesn't seem to shy from the limelight; he's now a partly public figure. People who (like myself) aren't assiduous viewers of US TV networks may well read "blah blah Joe the Plumber blah blah" somewhere, wonder who the hell he is, and be grateful for information from Wikipedia, the Screen Of Record. It seems that Joe is getting a certain degree of negative coverage elsewhere, and if this sours then editors here should exercise particular care. And it can always go to AfD again. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Summarily delete (and log). Maybe this individual merits an encylopaedia biography, maybe not; this is not it however; this is an unapologetic coatrack for issues in the current US political debate. That it blatantly questions the integrity of the subject by synthesis of sources only demonstrates more clearly that this article is just low-rent journalism. CIreland ( talk) 05:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that the information is not factual, relevant, or important. That the individual also does not merit an article. Finally, the page has been the subject of repeated vandalism and partisan bias. Dtaw2001 ( talk) 15:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. The closing editor stated in the closing rationale that Wikipeida should keep this article until "the spotlight has moved to another political talking point". This thinking eminently violates WP:NOT#NEWS, ignores WP:BLP1E, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:COATRACK. Invoking WP:IAR to support this decision is against the advice given in this essay, in particular the 2nd to last bullet "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia. Most of the article relates political commentary surrounding the financial aspects of Joe's business, peppered with quotations from Obama and McCain, and breaking-news style (contradictory) fact checking thereof. This text belongs in the article about the US 2008 election debate, where it was redirected after the first AfD. VG ☎ 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep until december 2008, If he is forgotten news by that time, his article can be merged into the campaign articles. Mpondopondo ( talk) 07:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep: As the days go by and the front page articles continue to grow in number, the WP:BLP1E concern fades and fades. So what we're left with is an individual who's garnering tons of front page news articles and hours upon hours of cable news coverage. They're investigating his licenses, taxes, voter registration, etc. This is so far above the WP:N line you need a telescope to see the millions of articles less notable. Oren0 ( talk) 08:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect. The closure is self-admittedly against policy. BLP is not extenuated by "there's no deadline", and it most certainly does not allow exceptions. This is a case of BLP1E if ever there was one. And "keeping the article provisionally until the spotlight moves on" makes no sense at all; our notability criteria are all about what is permanently notable. If we can already predict he'll be forgotten in three weeks, there's no use having an article now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete per WP:BLP. Not an appropriate use of IAR. Stifle ( talk) 08:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, overturn and relist for the full five days. Stifle ( talk) 08:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break 1

  • Keep temporarily. I support Mpondopondo, above, to keep until maybe December. Then it should only be kept if either 'Joe the plumber' enters the political lexicon or the real Joe seques some kind of media career out of his 15 mins.
Though there might be a parallel argument to write up a bio of that woman that thought Obama was 'an Arab'.. Earthlyreason ( talk) 10:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep . As an Iranian from the other side of the world , I was wondering what's the meaning of "Joe the Plumber" ! After searching the web , I find the best explanation here . I think the superiority of Wikipedia is exactly in it's up to dateness ! -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 11:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse Keep. Rename to "Joe the Plumber" (as the phrase has far higher encyclopedic value than the person), and rewrite, remove personal details about Mr.Wurzelbacher to keep consistent with BLP1E. -- Austrian ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete or overturn and relist. Close went against WP:BLP1E and not an appropriate use of IAR (which is intended for actions which improve the encyclopaedia). I agree with CIreland's summary. Orderinchaos 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is notable for more than one event. Yes, one event put him in the spotlight, but after that several things happened to make him a center for media attention. 66.171.242.114 ( talk) 13:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Just a note, and I realise not everyone realises that DRV works on a different basis to AfD, but it says at the top of Deletion Review: if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions. Thus, we're evaluating the decision, not the content. That gives the choice of either endorsing the decision (to keep), and giving reasons based on the decision itself; overturning the decision and then indicating an outcome. "Overturn and relist" sends it straight back to AfD, where a new consensus is obtained. Orderinchaos 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep, I suspect that incident will be of lasting interest. Joe has made clear by his behaviour that he is happy to be in the limelight.-- Grahame ( talk) 13:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. There is useful, cited information on the article page that would be cumbersome to integrate into other pages and which it makes sense to tie together in one place. The argument that he is famous for just one incident is bogus - lots of people talk to the candidates, even on TV, it's just that the Republicans have tried to make him an everyman and the Democrats and the media reacted. He has gone beyond that one incident now, and while his part to play in the overall election may have been small it is significant and worth documenting. The deletionists are just trying to kill the article on a (false) technicality. Mojo-chan ( talk) 15:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure I think, in weighing the arguments made and the status of the article's subject, BJ made the right decision. And, as stated in the original closure, if people feel that another AfD discussion should be held after a sufficient period of time, then by all means, we can do that. -- Mike (Kicking222) 15:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The bottom line of the close was that the closer did not find a consensus to delete, and it was very clear that no such consensus would be reached. I don't see how re-opening the debate would help anything, since the lack of a delete consensus was clear. In the meantime, the article is getting 30,000 hits per day and the political story of "Joe the Plumber" continues to develop, accumulating sources and more evidence that it's beyond a simple 1-event BLP (even if all the subsequent events were the result of the first one).-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He will be at least a notable footnote in history texts. I suspect that there will be additional data to come in the next few weeks. The real interest is in the fact that he would actually get a tax cut under Obama's plans. Pustelnik ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Redirect per above comments.-- JayJasper ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep This is a political race that will be studied for years, and this will be a small but notable footnote, so it's more than just news. AKRadecki Speaketh 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Delete or Merge I think "keep for now" is a terrible policy. We at Wikipedia should wait until someone is notable enough to warrant having their own article, not preemptively creating an article because there's buzz about them for a few days. -- Amwestover ( talk) 16:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist Textbook BLP1E; some of the content should be merged with the 2008 presidential campaign article, but certainly doesn't deserve it's own article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It should be noted that the above user is the original AfD nominator Baseballfan789 ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep Because this was a substantial part of the presidential debate and the election, I feel that it is important enough to keep on Wikipedia. People would go looking for Joe the Plumber on Wikipedia to figure what the fuss was all about, as I have done. The article helps. Cheers, Mazeau ( talk) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We need to distinguish the person from the overall incident. Any notability derives from the implications for the campaigns and is not inherent to Wurzelbacher as an individual. If Mr. W. eventually turns out to be someone of note in his own right we can revive the article per WP:DEADLINE. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, delete, and bury under a metric ton of salt. Close was extraordinarily out-of-process, and closing an AFD as keep while acknowledging BLP violations (not to mention the BLP1E nature of this article) is inexcusable. Joe the Plumber might be an appropriate article (stripped of the irrelevant personal details and the odious WP:SYN), but this is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep - This does not violate BLP or BLP1E. Coverage of Joe the Plumber is not "local news" or "tabloid coverage", this is a valid subarticle of United States presidential election debates, 2008. If you are concerned about BLP1E, the article could be moved to Joe the Plumber, which was my original search term. - hahnch e n 16:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse/keep, eventual rename The explanation of the original keep could have been better and done later but the drama of wikilawyering and saying that the bad explanation requires a new AFD is not necessary. As days go on, the concept of Joe the Plumber has expanded as people use the term "Jane the Plumber", "Dave the Plumber", etc. This suggests that the Joe the Plumber terminology will be more long lasting that a 1 day news event. It also suggests that the focus of the article should move toward Joe the Plumber and not Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. Chergles ( talk) 16:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete Reading the article as it has been "edited" at times. it appears it violates a full half dozen or more WP guidelines. Joe has 15 minutes of fame -- he is not a "public figure" (as defined by SCOTUS) and virtually none of his personal life is anyone's business. The rumors and the like which have beenperpetrated in WP are astounding. It is time to recognise the error made by the closer -- and actually remedy that error by deleting this article. Collect ( talk) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. Whatever the discussion was is moot at this point in light of subsequent events - his becoming a stump issue for McCain and Palin means it goes beyond a single incident. [4] [5] Relisting is fine, but the prior discussion is stale and it seems silly now to claim he is not notable. He is a limited purpose well-known individual by most accounts - any discussion of his taxes, plumbing license, and political leanings are certainly fair game per BLP, though his private life is not. If there is a problem we can fix it. Deleting an article about a notable individual simply because it is poor quality is a bad idea. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "any discussion of his taxes, plumbing license, and political leanings are certainly fair game per BLP" That really is a depressing statement, wow this place has sunk low. RMHED ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's not very WP:CIVIL of you, is it? Covering well-sourced matters of public interest is only depressing if you disagree as a matter of content. Wikidemon ( talk) 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Defer. Let's put this off for, oh I don't know, 17 days to see if this "Joe the Plumber" phenomena turns out to have a lasting effect on the election. With news that McCain has reached out to Joe to have him join the campaign, he may become a central part of the McCain campaign and thus worthy of an article. So my vote is to allow time to tell us if this article is warranted and to defer judgment until after November 4.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. Let's face it this man is going to be discussed as a landmark in the annals of presidential candidacies not only for the United States but for other democratic presidential elections across the world. 89.159.146.135 ( talk) 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close as is The admin that closed the debate did not endorse the article, nor did he state that there was any consensus to keep, merely that the nature of the debate was impossible to solve during the timeframe. There is no prejudice to starting a new AFD in a few weeks, once no one cares about this guy anymore. If his fame is as fleeting as everyone says it will be, then only time will show that to be the case. If he becomes the subject of lots of additional coverage over the next few weeks, then time will show that too. However, maintaining the status quo until such a time as a reasonable judgement can be made does not seem all that bad. For the record, I personally voted to delete or redirect the article, but that is not what this is about. The closure of the discussion was called for, regardless of what the eventual fate of the article in question will be. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. This article has gotten over 60,000 hits in 2 days and is obviously a matter of substantial public interest. There are plenty of verifiable, reliable sources to justify the article. Removing NPOV violations and original research is a matter of normal editing. Under WP:BLP, deletion would be justified only if there was no good version to revert to. In any case, the stats indicate plenty of people are watching this article. I would have no objection to changing the main title to Joe the Plumber since that's a more common search term anyway. Nor do I have any objection to removing specific information about taxes, licensing, etc. None of that requires deletion of the article. If everyone has forgotten about this a year from now, it can be merged into the debate article then. *** Crotalus *** 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close. BLP1E does not, in any case, require deleting the articles of people known primarily for one event, but rather suggests in those cases to write about the event rather than the person, which may still involve a separate article rather than a redirect or merge if the event is notable enough. -- Delirium ( talk) 18:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The notable content of the article is in this and this - but even in those sections there is too much quoting. Material in the remaining text is not very notable. Take the interesting material of his encounters with the candidates into the articles on the campaign, which as I understand is the point of WP:BLP1E Babakathy ( talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn because the discussion did not run for five days and there was no clear reason for closing it early, and restart AfD after the election when the fuss will likely be over.  Sandstein  19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no set length of time an AFD must run, and this deletion review seems largely like sour grapes to me. Jtrainor ( talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "Endorse Keep'. What we don't want is articles about people to whom something happened, or who did one notable thing that the press reported on extensively (for example, robbing a bank). But here we have a case of a guy who voluntarily held a press conference, and appeared on several television shows - who sought the limelight. So privacy isn't an issue; as for being a one-time, not-really-notable matter, Joe the plumber (which I think is a better name for the article) is probably going to be mentioned many, many times in the future when this and other campaigns are discussed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - why did the discussion not run for five days? Restart after election. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 21:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (keep for now): I think the closing admin's actions were a highly sensible and commendable use of WP:IAR. There clearly are concerns about this person's notability and whether the article conforms with our policies; however, the sheer number of people who have been searching for it over the past few days demands that we have an article on the subject, at least while he is in the news. Deleting such a prominent article would be highly counterproductive; it would be on par with deleting 'today's featured article' for non-notability. The appropriate solution is to give the article a temporary 'stay of execution' while it's under the media spotlight, and reassess it in a week or so when tempers have cooled, which is exactly what the closing admin did. 82.41.24.45 ( talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oops, didn't notice I wasn't signed in - above contribution was by me. Terraxos ( talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. BLP1E is not an exact fit here, and keep makes sense. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep, the AfD was clear on consensus and the keep is obvious. Is this a 2nd AfD? Bstone ( talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to "Joe the Plumber". WP:BLP1E says: "Cover the event, not the person." In this case the person is not notable but the phenomenon certainly is. The article name "Joe the Plumber" would refer to the phenomenon more than the person. Lampman ( talk) 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist Keeping the article to minimize may have been an acceptable result if the close had occurred early. Right now we have people !voting keep, delete, or merge in this DRV, but these are opinions that should have been expressed at an AfD, but many of the users didn't have a chance. A ni Mate 00:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't know if I can begin to explain how trivial the subject of this article appears to be to someone observing the election from outside the USA. Lexo ( talk) 00:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. there were at least three events involving Joe the Plumber, the discussion with Obama, the phone call with McCain, and his presence in the third presidential debate. Colsing admin was right to close based on WP:IAR and WP:DEADLINE < Baseballfan789 ( talk) 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and return to AFD I think the closer had the best intentions, and he is right in that it will likely go back and forth into creation/afd until his 15 minutes of fame are gone, however, the AFD should have been allowed to continue. I don't think you can keep as no concensus in 1 day regardless of circumstances. This and other political articles are going to be ugly for a few more weeks. All we really can do is follow policy very strictly when it comes to process for now, to insure our actions are neutral. It will all shake out soon enough. Anything less will create more problems, like this DRV. As for keeping or deleting the article, this is NOT the right forum for that discussion, the AFD is. PHARMBOY ( TALK) 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • 'Relist It almost never pays to close a contentious AfD very early even in the best of faith, as here -- the attempt to simplify things by ending the need for discussion is usually counterproductive, just like it has been now. (n my view a perfectly justified article, but that's for the afd--NYT alone now has 5 articles about this. ) DGG ( talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break 2

  • Strong permanent keep. This guy now a cultural icon and hence very notable. The article needs to be left there to allow it to be edited, evolved, and improved. This cloak and dagger stuff of putting it on salt until after the election is not good wiki-ethics and sets up a dangerous precedent. There is no need to rename the article. Just leave it alone and have a redirect from "Joe the Plumber" to the present article. I can't see the problem. Utternutter ( talk) 01:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep was based on a correct interpretation of BLP1E that Wurzelbacher's notability extends well beyond any one incident. Wurzelbacher has received broad coverage in the media and will continue to do so for some time. That this coverage may well die down at some point is irrelevant to his strong claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep him' He deserves a wikipedia page as a news phenomenon and meme in the presidential election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.159.146 ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You are totally correct. This guy has meme status and thus the article is entirely appropriate. Utternutter ( talk) 04:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Er, first Joe is a cultural icon, and now Joe has meme status. Now, a meme is a contagious and mutable idea, so .... what with this transformative ability, it's clear that Joe the Plumber is a witch, and we must burn her. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redirect to United States presidential election, 2008. Fails WP:Notability. Quote " Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," Docku: “what up?” 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article has ample reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Alansohn ( talk) 05:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Well, I am not making this up. WP:Notability says so. For all its purposes here in wikipedia, Popularity is distinct from Notability. I believe that the subject is popular but not notable for having his own page. You may diagree with me, which is a different issue. Docku: “what up?” 05:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • To say that A is distinct from B is not to say that A is unrelated to B. (And should I install "Benguiat Bk BT"?) -- Hoary ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and quit listening to suggestions that render Wikipedia less useful. I want to find out who "Joe Plumber" is, I want it explained to me from the top as if I haven't heard it before (I haven't), Wikipedia is the place to go to. Any time you want something explained to you from the top, Wikipedia is the place to go. Quit listening to people who want to leave holes in Wikipedia that renders it anything other than the place to go to for information when you want to be clued in about something. For crying out loud. Jdavidb ( talk •  contribs) 05:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. The original close was done hastily and out of process. It was open for ten hours before being closed. His fifteen minutes are up, and since things can change, this needs to as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect. NN as a plumber heence clearly fails WP:BLP1E. McWomble ( talk) 06:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Huh? Nobody ever said he was notable as a plumber. What does that have to do with anything? Everyking ( talk) 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as long as JtP continues to inspire discussion while not becoming diluted, we should keep the article. If it looses its potency, it should redirect into the appropriate debate article. If the article goes dormant for a couple months we know it needs to be axed. -- BlindWanderer ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Inevitably people will stop talking about him at some point or another, but that's irrelevant. Once established, notability is forever. Everyking ( talk) 06:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong endorse and keep...Wikipedia can be considered an encyclopedia of immediacy. As Jdaivb states, the reader comes for information. "Joes" notability has extended well beyond his allotted 15 minutes. Front page news coverage across the country entitles "Joe the Plumber" to keep his Wikipedia status. Keep the "information highway" open. It's not a bridge to nowhere.-- Buster7 ( talk) 10:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete/redirect. Closing admin has committed a clear violation of WP:ONEEVENT in closing this AfD as keep, and should be up for a reprimand. Both in the AfD and in this deletion review, the "keep" votes amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT pleas, which completely ignore the aforementioned Wikipedia rule. Tarc ( talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The idle dismissal of the !votes you personally disagree with shows that you did not actually read them, as numerous editors -including me- gave reasons supported by policy and/or precedent as to why the AfD was properly closed and the article should be kept. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 13:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I did read them. The dismissal is not idle, and your reasoning is fraudulent; the man's notoriety stems from an initial name-dropping by a politician. Repeated name-droppings by others, with all essentially trace back to the initial one, do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability threshold. "Joe" here still has done nothing notable, other than to be mentioned, repeatedly, by the media for the same singular reason. Tarc ( talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment And the problems with biographies of living persons continue. Quite unambiguous I think. The remedy formed in that case gives administrators the tools to redirect the article under the remedy - it's just a matter of finding an admin who hasn't forgotten about it and isn't afraid of being bold. If any admin disagreed with such an action taken under the remedy, they can always appeal it...unless of course, they think the consensus will not be clear from the community and that it will need to go in front of ArbCom instead.... Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse keep I personally would have preferred to let this go for the full AfD time once we had an AfD. But it is quite clear at this point that further discussion is unlikely to produce a different result for the forseeable future. It makes far more sense to simply wait until after the election and AfD it then. Moreover, any overturn should result in either a new AfD or a relisting of the old AfD. It is not reasonable given the clear lack of consensus for deletion in the AfD to have this result in a deletion or redirection at this time. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I can't believe this is even a point of contention. The Presidential candidates refer to him as a symbol of a larger group, his background info is completely irrelevant. In addition, there are lots of things they have mentioned "at least 23 times," but that does not mean we need a wiki page for everything. smooth0707 ( talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect per R. fiend's comments above. Postdlf ( talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect to the 2008 Presidential debates article. This person has limited notability in the context of what Joe Wurzelbacher was supposed to represent during a discussion in a political debate about U.S. tax policy. If much of the content from the Joe the Plumber article already appears in the 2008 Presidential debates article, then the recommendation for this article should be moved to Strong Delete since Joe Wurzelbacher (aka "Joe the Plumber" and Samuel J. Wurzelbacher) represents a clear and obvious case of temporary notability. → Lwalt ♦  talk 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redirect I noted in the original debate that this was a clear case of B1E. We are the number 2 hit (behind Gnews) for his name in a google search. He is a non-public figure and the entire content of the article consists of material summarized from a week-long feeding frenzy of news organizations pretending to be organs of investigation. We can't make a biographical sketch for him and it doesn't help us to have a stand-alone article on this fellow. Protonk ( talk) 18:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article. Subject is not notable enough to warrant an article on his own. He deserves to be mentioned on United States presidential election, 2008 and United States presidential election debates, 2008 though. -- Tocino 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per user:Balloonman. He's got an interesting point, keep and move to "Joe the plumber". BLP issues can be addressed by going a bit lighter on the information about Joe Wurzelbacher, addressing BLP issues individually and specifically as they come up, and focus on the concept and how the concept have been used and discussed in this election season and possibly beyond. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 18:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral As demonstrated by the article's talk page, quite a few people come to Wikipedia to look for information about "Joe the Plumber". Also, some news sources discuss the article itself. However, Joe is a textbook violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. During the AfD, I was in favor of deletion for that exact reason. I can't decide, in this case, whether to follow policy, or to utilize WP:IAR and allow for Wikipedia to contain this information for the time being. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - While the discussion is highly charged in a way that an encyclopedia shouldn't be, any decision on this article is going to remain controversial. The value of an encyclopedia is that it is not a newspaper. The fact is that this is looking like something that will last, but we truly do not know. Any judgment on its lasting value is original research at best. This article will definitely change in the future. I disagree with the decision not to rename, however. Any lasting value this article will have is not associated with who the man is. Furthermore, in keeping with wp:blp we should not open an encyclopedia to becoming a discussion on this man by partisans of either side. I think move, protect, and revisit is the best policy. But, more importantly, I think this is likely to reappear. There needs to be a general Wikipedia policy that addresses this type of situation as opposed to this instance. 71.156.38.79 ( talk) 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article until the presidential election is finished. We will then see, of what importance the Wurzelbacher incident was. Perhaps it can then be merged into the article about the 2008 presidential election. But at this very moment, we simply do not know. 91.43.64.154 ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment CNN just carried a speech live by McCain in Toledo, Ohio, near Joe's home town, wherein McCain talked extensively about Joe, and said Joe was the winner of the last presidential debate, and that Joe was famous for getting Obama to say he wanted to "spread the wealth around." The commentator afterward said that McCain wanted Joe to be there, but that Joe had flown to New York City to make appearances on the major news channels. This clearly satisfies WP:N by virtue of his continuing extensive coverage in mainstream media, and WP:BLPor WP:BLP1E or WP:coatrack by Joe's seeking of media exposure. He is clearly no shrinking violet, seeking only privacy and obscurity. Edison ( talk) 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break 3

  • Keep but Rename, Joe the Plumber ought to be the article title. This article is just as important and notable as Welfare queen, from one of the Reagan debates. Naufana : talk 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment Peggy Noonan has now said that Joe the Plumber has "made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made". JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename, per Naufana.-- Parthian Scribe ( talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Rename, but also cut dramatically to delete the stuff about Wurzelbacher's personal life. You guys have to stop looking at this as editors and more of as anonymous readers. Readers won't really care about whether this guy meets notability standards or BLP1E, but will want to read about him. As for the people that say "go see Wikinews," remember that Wikinews gets far less traffic than we do. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, and then merge with an article about the 2008 election after the election is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.24.119 ( talk) 01:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Uh what? That makes no sense under any policy basis at all. And please keep in mind that this about what to do about the previous AfD, not a new AfD itself. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Note that the article in question has just been moved to Joe the Plumber, with Joe Wurzelbacher as a REDIRECT. — Becksguy ( talk) 01:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Endorse Keep. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Joe the Plumber has become one of the defining political archetypes of an American presidential election (as demonstrated by abundant sources). To delete or redirect this to the debates would be an anti-encyclopedic dereliction of our objectives. This has implications in political science, media, etc. To call it textbook BLP1E is to miss so many points that I can't even really begin to address it. Just read the sources. This is about so much more than one event now, it's surprising (and disappointing to the point of dispiriting, really) that anyone would argue otherwise. -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Permanent Keep. Joe the Plumber is entirely notable, but not for his personal life, i agree with the renaming of the article. JEMdev ( talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Closure (and Keep) per Kralizec! -- Falcorian  (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Permanent Keep. Per JEMdev, per JayHenry Redsonja84 ( talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Endorse & Keep per JayHenry, Edison, Kralizec!, Balloonman, Oren0, and numerous others. As a plumber, he's non notable, even under his own name. But "Joe the Plumber" is a notable election cultural icon, symbol, meme, and archetype in a historic presidential election, and clearly for way more than just one event. The famous question to Obama, a personal meeting with Obama, a telephone call with McCain, invited by McCain to appear with him on the campaign trail, flying to NYC for personal interviews, multiple telephone, TV, and talk show appearances (CNN, Fox News, Good Morning America, CNBC, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, and the BBC, so far), a press conference, and reporters camped on his lawn. He has been covered multiple times in the mainstream press, including covered or mentioned in the NYT 10 times. The Times referred to him as "a national figure". He has even been proposed for congress in 2012. From KARE11 news: But today "Joe the Plumber" is at the center of the race for the White House. [6]. The AP said that he ...became a focal point of the presidential race last week. [7]. Ghits are now up to 1.3M. All that clearly shows that Joe the Plumber is notable for way more than one event and therefore clearly satisfies BLP1E. These multiple and separate events may have been engendered by the original question, but they clearly surpass that in scope, importance, notability, and level of coverage. He’s ... now the most famous plumber in the nation. [8]. The closer was also correct in invoking WP:IAR, as that is for exactly this kind of article. This article does what WP is supposed to do, provide a service to our readers, as evidenced by the comments. — Becksguy ( talk) 10:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – now that the article has been renamed to "Joe the Plumber," keeping any negative information about Wurzelbacher (such as this) in the article violates WP:BLP. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There is a lively discussion about that issue on the article talk page. — Becksguy ( talk) 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment Of minimal relevance but note that the French Wikipedia now has an article on : . They appear to be discussing deleting it also. JoshuaZ ( talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Joe intentionally entered the political fray. He is being used by both parties. He has become a snowclone. People of the 2050s will want to read about this. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, keep per Balloonman. Everyking also raises some important points. — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=1090672203"