Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menugate


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Menugate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One week-long political controversy, does not meet notability guidelines. Slac speak up! 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well it's only been a week! I was surprised to see so many media references actually - this first appeared in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix and I was just going to delete the entry as a minor affair until I checked how many hits it got. Looks to be at least as significant as Utegate as regards media attention, and combined with Gillard's sexist-feminism speech and the Sattler sacking it's turned into quite a saga. Given the level of media attention Gillard is drawing in the run-up to the election, who knows how long we'll continue to see "Menugate" reverberating on the front page? --Pete (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS as far as I am concerned. The speech and Sattler's sacking were entirely unrelated and it would be blatant synthesis to rope them together and claim they were one in the same. If "menugate" (a term used by only a couple of media outlets) has a longer term WP:EFFECT (though I don't think it will) then it can always be recreated. Stalwart 111  01:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno about a couple of news sources. ABC, Murdoch and Fairfax - which have most of the market - are currently running stories. It's obviously widely covered within Australia and current. Google is showing a host of smaller outlets. Not that I'm carrying a torch for the article, but if Utegate marked Turnbull's demise, then Menugate seems to be ushering Gillard out. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it would be fair to say they did run stories, but except for the Mal Brough follow-on there's been virtually nothing beyond those first few days. What else can you say about a crude joke other than someone made it and some people who shouldn't have been involved in its making had to front the media and stifle their laughter? I'm not convinced it's fair to say this has/will have an impact on her broader career, even in the context of an election campaign that might be the end of said career. Stalwart 111  06:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the impression they were stifling laughter. What was interesting was the way Gillard jumped on it and the way it backfired when she was attempting to portray herself as the target of sexist attacks. The big drop in support amongst men that followed just fanned the fires. So it's part of a wider and longer story. We're seeing the term continue in the media. Anyway, this thing's got a few more days to run, let's see how it goes. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box” is not a sexist attack Pete?   Djapa Owen (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, it wasn't intended for her eyes. How can you hit a target you aren't aiming for? Second, she blamed people who had nothing to do with it. She was left with egg on her face and her only response politicobabble from the "Yes, Minister" handbook. All she had left was innuendo and allegation. No evidence, you see. That's how it tied in - the menu itself was a private joke, but Gillard made it into something notable. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So if someone insults you behind your back that is not offensive? If you discuss a woman's genitalia when she is not there that is not sexist? Strange values there. Of course that still has no impact on whether the Menugate article has merit or not, but then half the discussion on this page does not relate to that either.   Djapa Owen (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Pete - I think there's a few of them who would have had a good laugh at the menu in private. It was meant as a joke and satirical menus are a staple of food humour. There are well-known sandwich shops where you can get yourself a Justin Bieber butty or a Lindsay Lohan sub. This was just a bit cruder. But yeah, plenty of time for others to weight in. Stalwart 111  08:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anyone laughing. Nobody was reported as laughing. They all seemed genuinely appalled. It was appalling. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe it's just a matter of me not reading that much into it. Some people created a crude joke and got busted for it. They called it a "light-hearted joke" and I'm inclined to believe that was the intention, rather than that they intended to be appalling (though that may have been the outcome). Stalwart 111  11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence doesn't support this. There's nothing to link the menu with anybody but the restaurateur - or even the fundraiser. The fellow who eventually made it public did so as part of the sexism storm that Gillard had created. The second time he had sent it to Labor people and this time it was used to attack the Liberals in the precise context of the sexism/feminism row. This is Tony Abbott's Liberals, this is what they're like and I think the real risk for Australia is if Mr Abbott was ever Prime Minister it wouldn't be a question of what's on fundraising menus, we would see this lack of respect for women littered through all of his government policy documents," the PM said. If Gillard hadn't made a fuss, thinking that she had indeed "busted" the Libs, then there would have been no "Menugate". This is more than just a joke menu. This is part of the wider picture. --Pete (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's kind of my point - that quote is from the restaurateur. He created it as a joke with his son. Someone posted it on Facebook and the ex-employee got his hands on it and suggested it had been prepared for a fundraiser based on his experience of similar menus being created previously. Whether any of that is true? Who knows. But I still don't think it was originally created for anything other than a silly laugh. Stalwart 111  14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's Julia Gillard's quote. That's what makes this more than a silly joke. We might all chuckle at How Green was My Cactus, but none of the jokes there make it onto the front page as a Prime Ministerial speech. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the "light-hearted joke" quote. Yours is from Gillard of course. Stalwart 111  23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A minor story in the broader scheme of things. Proved that there are people with poor taste in society. But we all know that already. Just some excited political animals wanting to document everything they get worked up about. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the first mention of the term was by an ALP attack squad aimed at Mal Brough, I dunno. Different sides of politics get worked up about things the other side would like hushed up, it seems to me. Perhaps we should steer a middle course. The criterion for inclusion is whether we think people will go looking for the term in times to come. If we don't have an entry for it, then their search will fail. Doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything, but hey, storage is cheap. The criteria is notability, not whether anyone personally thinks it should be in or out to suit their political preferences, don't you agree? --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stalwart111 and HiLo48: this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge, if it does not warrant an article in its own right, perhaps into [| Julia Gillard, section Gender politics] as this is a significant demonstration of the moral character of the Coalition's senior ranks.   Djapa Owen (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that it was the restaurant owner, not "the Coalition's senior ranks". Even if it were, how would merging to Julia Gillard be relevant? She was only one of the people "attacked" by the menu. If we had an article for the restaurant, we could merge it there. That's about it. Stalwart 111  12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it the restaurant owner? Or was he protecting members of the party he donates to? We will probably never know, but I'd recommend not believing everything you hear about events like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who knows? We can only go on what he's said and it may well be as you say. But either way, a merger as suggested would create major WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT issues and wouldn't be appropriate. Stalwart 111  01:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we can call this one can't we? It looks like it is a great excuse for a debate but not much of a topic for an article.   Djapa Owen (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. --Surturz (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No lasting notability p  b  p  19:12, 25 June 2013 (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.