Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shirt58 (talk | contribs) at 08:02, 28 November 2012 (Relisting debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:02, 28 November 2012 by Shirt58 (talk | contribs) (Relisting debate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

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

Just like some of the recent articles on individual words of phrases from speeches in a US political context, politics , this is a similar one from Australia. It seems every bit as unjustified; the place some of this information belongs is the article about Alan Jones. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:EVENT. still getting coverage this month . LibStar (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

also as per WP:DIVERSE, additional overseas coverage in several sources CNN, guardian, NZherald. International Business times. Uk telegraph , UK times , Xinhua news agency China , radio in Hong Kong . LibStar (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete the section in the Alan Jones article is enough. --Salix (talk): 08:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:EVENT. Definately notable. This issue surpasses the notability of Jones himself. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Major news event in Australia, with political implications. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep per reasons stated above. I'd never hear about the guy if the incident hadn't happened. Lguipontes (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge Just merge it into the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete And merge into the person's bio. Like most other breakout "controversy" articles, this merits nothing more than a paragraph with a few supporting references. §FreeRangeFrog 22:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Everything that needs to be said about this is already in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

not a reason for deleting. see WP:BELONG. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Particularly as his comments are covered in full in the main article, I fail to see why we should have an article on what I would call a minor controversy that had no major effects, other than politicians lining up to say how dreadful his comments were. I don't believe this meets all aspects of WP:EVENT, particularly WP:EFFECT (no particular wide-ranging effects) and WP:PERSISTENCE (very little further analysis). Same information is found at the main Alan Jones article, and article title is not a plausible redirect, so no need for a merge. Several "keep" comments seem to be simply WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the claim that the incident surpasses Jones in notability is laughable. IgnorantArmies – 01:32, Wednesday November 21, 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable at all outside Australasia, just as I bet you hardly would say that radio comentators in languages other than English change something in the lives of average Australians, if you ever heard about them, like jokes about Fox News being not understood in Latin America (you can try to insult Globo instead in Brazil, for example, but if you have Americans in the crowd, they will go WTH?). President Julia, the history of her family and opposition politicians and politicized public figures being nasty in commenting it or using it as a weapon against her are of value in other regions of the world, even if minimal. Lguipontes (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The controversy goes beyond Jones. The leader of the opposition's echoing of the phrase prompted the prime minister's "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man" speech. Doing justice to the controversy in Alan Jones (broadcaster) would be giving undue weight to elements not germane to Jones. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep As per Anthonyhcole. While not a major political event, it deserves more than a para in a BLP. The ripples from Jones' private remarks spread far further than intended. --Pete (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Yes, it's an important element of a bigger picture. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep the general superficiality of Australian political debate and somewhat trivialised discourse and the way it is reflected back from broadcasters is clearly notable in a long term understanding of Australian political history - perhaps not a global phenomenon, it si nevertheless a notable sign post of the degradation of public discourse Satu Suro 08:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Does not need a separate article as the parent article is not very long. It is about one speech which has not received any significant international coverage is thus is unlikely to be of great special interest to Wikioedia readers in any case. It also can easily volate UNDUE and WP:BLP. The !votes about it "being part of a bigger picture" do not make any policy arguments at all. And the case at hand requires us to look at policies. Collect (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

significant international coverage? Check the links with my !vote. Covered in major uk papers, and even CNN. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's an unparallelled controversy and protest in terms of social media in Australia (his show is still radioactive in terms of major advertisers, and any whose ads appear are *still* getting deluged with sufficient complaints to withdraw), has had significant political fallout (with "the speech"), has spawned new organisations (witness the growth and power of Destroy the Joint) and has seriously damaged the influence of one of the formerly most powerful figures in Australian media. I'm inclined to wonder if the user who claimed there was "no particular wide-ranging effects" and "very little further analysis" has been living under a rock or has picked up a newspaper in the last two months. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:EVENT. Still being mentioned in the media so a keep in my opinion . Sydneystriker (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:EVENT. Still being covered in the media and situation ongoing (sponsors Isuzu and Lincraft pulled out last week). Certainly at least as notable as Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy Oracle7 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we call this one? There is a fairly clear agreement on Keep and many more compelling arguments than on the delete side ("President Julia"? NPOV?) Djapa Owen (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, mea culpa. People from presidential republics often immediately associate the figure of the highest head of the governmental body with the title "President". I meant Prime Minister. Lguipontes (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - classic WP:NOT#NEWS (newsworthy event but with no enduring notability). And "died of shame controversy"? It needs a page move at the very least. I urge the closing admin to consider that many of the Keep !votes above cite rationales expressly excluded in WP:NOT. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hardly. There are a ton of strong arguments for keeping this article firmly rooted in policy, and on the other side, a few assertions that it somehow fits under WP:NOT (despite plenty of explanation that it does, in fact, have significant enduring notability, and no sensible explanation to the contrary). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep but rename - The controversy is indisputably notable because of its commercial effect and its direct parallels with the Rush Limbaugh affair, however the name sucks and I'd be keen to support a rename. 124.169.167.84 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not really a very positive comment IP, how about actually proposing a new name in stead of just sniping at the current one? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Satisfies WP:EVENT with national coverage over an extended duration. The article itself could be improved of course. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong delete - The !votes above cited EVENT as a reason to keep are failing to miss the key factors of determining an event's notability. A (mis)statement was the extent of the event -it has no enduring nature past that. There are reactions to do, and it clearly hurt Jones' program audience, but there's no apparent further fallout or actions that is affecting anyone else. Because nearly all the responses is negative in light of the statement, there is an immediate POV bias on this article that further makes it improper as a standalone article due to the lack of further impact. The current article on JOnes is sufficiently short to include any continued updates, though based on the timing and sources, outside of what has already hurt Jones' career, likely no more will be upcoming; including the incident within Jones' article helps to balance out the POV nature without ignore the fact that the event happened and people responded negatively to it. It would likely be different if he were a politician (much like the current Petronus scandal in the US), but in this case, he's more like our Howard Stern or Rush Limbaught - able to ruffle feathers but without little actual impact on the world at large and only ends up hurting themselves. Note that I do believe most of the important details from this page are already included in Jones' page, including the bulk of refs, and as this is a unlikely search target, deletion is proper instead of leaving behind a redirect. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here, and Misplaced Pages isn't a political forum for stupid remarks said by politicians or news commentators unless it has a major impact later on, which none of the keep voters nor the sourcing shows here. Advertising been pulled from his show is not a major impact on a global scale. For admin note if the consensus here is to merge (which I see very little to merge), you can not merge an article and then delete it per our licensing guidelines, it needs to be redirected with the history kept. Secret 07:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories: