18 October 2008

List of drag queens

List of drag queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Overturn - closing admin deleted the article barely three hours after the AFD was opened, citing WP:BLP. This deletion is based on a deeply flawed premise, namely that being called a "drag queen" is so controversial that WP:BLP demands its removal. The introductory text noted that the list was for people who are drag queens or female impersonators. The only name cited in the AFD in support of this deletion was "Liam Sullivan" although it's not clear from the context whether the editor was referring to Liam Sullivan (who is dead and so beyond the reach of BLP) or Liam Kyle Sullivan (who wears female clothing in his Internet videos and so would seem to qualify as a female impersonator but if not that's an editing question). The mention of the stars of To Wong Foo in the AFD is a red herring, as none of them were ever included in the list because they are not known as either drag queens or female impersonators. No one other than the closing admin indicated that there might be issues with either WP:NOT (the list did not violate any provision of that policy that I can see) or WP:LIST (the list was well within that guideline). Given that in 2008 we ought to be well beyond the notion that being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is "controversial," given that there were no names included on the list that did not have a corresponding Wikipedia article and given that the solution to sourcing issues is to tag for sourcing rather than mow the article down, the close is unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Conrad

Warren conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

{{{reason}}} My article about noted essayist Warren Conrad has been unfairly deleted even before I finished working on it by User:NawlinWiki. He deleted even after I posted a =Hang on = His talk page can't even be accessed by registered users (protected) I feel this is an Uncivil abuse of his administrative powers. Please investigate and allow me to put up this notable article on this well respected essayist. Thanks! Sirwtc (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Did the article indicate why Mr. Conrad was notable per the Notability guidelines? If it did not, then it was a valid deletion. If you can recreate the article using those guidelines, or rework an undeleted copy, then there's no problem (and I'll leave a note for NawlinWiki for you). --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Thanks for your help Satsui. I've tried to re-create the article. Please leave a note to NawlinWiki if you can. Warren Conrad is a prolific writer and noted blogger. As I've mentioned in the article. I'll put more up when I can. Sirwtc (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article said "Warren Conrad is a noted essayist published in blogspot and other sites." His complete profile is here. Besides maintaining the blog Warren's World of Wisdom, what else has Warren Conrad written? Has anyone written anything about Warren Conrad? -- Suntag ☼ 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the second person who speedied this, Nawlin was the first. In both cases, the article merely stated that the person was an essayist, and provided a link for people to go read the material. That's spam, in my opinion. There was absolutely no encyclopedic content, and no evidence of notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wurzelbacher

Joe Wurzelbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

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]
• 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]

• 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]
• 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. - hahnchen 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]