Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber (2nd nomination)


 * 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   WP:SNOW Keep. Non-admin closure. If you think I made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page! D ARTH P ANDA duel 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Joe the Plumber is not a notable character. He is simply the result of media hysteria. Information on Joe the Plumber can be included in an article on the McCain and Obama campaigns Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This topic was hashed over. This article has got heavy traffic on a daily basis by both editors and viewers. That in itself is notable. He is on the campaign trail with McCain presently. There may be more support for deletion after the November 4 election? Too soon for any merge or other activity at this time. --VictorC (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Joe the Plumber has been a constant theme of, and presence in, the McCain campaign ever since the last debate.  Yes, the media has fanned this, but so has McCain; such is American culture, which we should reflect.  Time has shown the original AfD correctly decided not to delete.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So "media hysteria" is now the reason we write articles here at Wikipedia?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the McCain campaign has deliberately made Joe the Plumber into a political symbol, one of the most important of the final month of the campaign. Many pundits have credited Joe and the accompanying "spread the wealth" criticism of Obama for McCain's modest gains in recent polling. Yes, the media likes JtP because it's a good story, but this is not a media creation. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as one piece of evidence that it's not just the media keeping this going, see  this Wall Street Journal story from yesterday: "McCain introduced Wurzelbacher as 'an American hero, a great citizen of Ohio and my role model.'"  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove Not notable outside this election. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notable all over the world. Just google it, or talk to a human. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone also nominate for deletion this article Tito Munoz? Seems to be related. More fluff.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right here: Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Munoz. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Last afd closed just 15 days ago as keep. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per TenPoundHammer and Wasted Time R. This man is important and notable at least while the media keeps fanning his story. After the election, we can see, but right now, he's important. D ARTH P ANDA duel 00:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This was recently AFD'ed and kept. We can't keep nominating something until we get the result we like. There is supposed to be a waiting period. I suggest we wait with our final decision at least until after the elections, it's just 3 more days. Then the whole hype will be over and we can look at it with a clear head. - Mgm|(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep but preferably as a rd to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. JJL (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Despite his recent increased role in the campaign, he will only ever be famous for the 2008 presidential campaign. Therefore, the article contents should be merged with the campaign articles. After November 4 nobody is going to care about this article anymore. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I hear the name as often as I hear McCain's or Obama's some days. That in itself makes him notable. Post election, might be a very different story.svunt (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this has been hashed over at least 5 times in other forums with the same result: to keep. Since then, the topic has become even more notable.  I do wish people would read the talk pages before wasting our time with the same bedraggled arguments.Mattnad (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, media hysteria is a good reason for an article. If media coverage of a topic rises to the level of hysteria, it is almost certainly a notable, encyclopedic topic.  Histories of the campaign will be written, and JtP will certainly figure in scholarly books and articles on it.John Z (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a related Afd located at Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Munoz. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP - Very notable. Ask anyone, google him, everyone knows who he is.  Plus, he's been a huge part of the McCain campaign ever since the question he asked Obama, as well as basically the entire third debate.  I don't know why this was even nominated.  Plus, tons of media hysteria=most likely notable.  DavidWS (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We'll have to see if he'll be notable just for the election. Right now, he's notable.  Why the rush to delete? This article has been nom'ed for AFD just over 2 weeks ago, and there was no consensus for deletion. We can always AFD this three months down the road with clearer heads and when the election-mania is over.   Fraud  talk to me  02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Anybody think WP:SNOW applies now, or do we have to consider the two delete votes above? D ARTH P ANDA duel 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is WP:SNOWing... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.