Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher

... This could potentially change the campaign (I hope not), so keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.128.16 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep
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.Huedog (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep--Pending further information. IF the AP information is correct, then this could completely call to question this guy's credibility as well as that of Sen. McCain and Ms. Palin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.36 (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep/Re-name
This article is important because it refers to a subject of debate between the US presidential candidates. Often politicians discuss an average hypothetical person, e.g., a married householder earning $40,000 per annum with two children, but in this case the subject was a real person. I think the article should describe the candidates discussion about "Joe the Plumber", which was about how Obama's taxation policies would affect an ordinary person. It should also mention that the real Joe was identified and that there were discrepancies between his position and that described by the candidates. But the individual is unimportant and the article should be re-named "Joe the Plumber". In time, "Joe the Plumber" may become a common term like Willie Horton or more likely just a footnote to the 2008 debates. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider a policy change
The arguments that Wikipedia should not have articles for individuals famous for a single event are valid, and it is certainly true that this article violates Wikipedia policy. That said, the arguments for keeping the article for the duration of this election are certainly valid, and Wikipedia would be greatly diminished as a resource if it rejects all articles of this type. What I propose is a change of policy that will allow for a transition from current events into past events. If someone comes into the limelight for a short period of time, let editors make an article about that person. If, in time, that person proves to have more than 15 minutes of fame, then the article can stay. Otherwise, it can be merged/redirected into the most relevant article.

Consider the example of Jared Fogle, the Subway spokesman. Clearly, at the time, this would have been seen as a candidate for deletion based on the criteria set forth in the policy. The guy lost weight by eating sandwiches, and had an article written about him by a former roommate. Big Deal. Nonetheless, Jared Fogle went on to become a long term spokesman for Subway, and it now makes sense that the article is included. With a policy adjustment, we could allow the Jared article to post, and future decisions to merge/redirect/sustain the article could be made at the applicable time.

At this time, the article for Joe the Plumber should remain as it is. When enough time has passed following the election, we can determine whether the article should be kept or merged/redirected into the Election of 2008 article. Is there any reason why we can't change the policy to allow for this kind of transition?--199.125.45.10 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)