Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

Discussion below follows this !vote Keep but rename, as per Djapa Owen and The Drover's Wife. My first instinct, upon reading the discussion at ANI, and seeing that the article was nominated by one of our more outspoken inclusionists, was to come and close this discussion as a delete. However, after carefully reading the article, and seeing some of the discussion above, I have to agree with those who wish to keep the article. There is a lot of information here which is not in the Jones article, and adding it to his bio would be WP:UNDUE. However, I think that it needs to be in Wikipedia, under a better name; the current title is quite confusing. This is a case of a single event snowballing, but it's properly handled as a discussion of the event, not the people involved. Horologium (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * " in the era of "gotcha" politics everything is pounced on and inflated by one's opponents." It's not up to us to make subjective judgements on what media prefer to cover or not, here: our duty is to mirror, structure and condense their coverage, regardless of our personal and biased opinions on their job. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it kinda is; when something becomes routine, it ceases to be notable. Take for example what the President and his family buy each other for Christmas, that sort of stupid banality is reported on ENDLESSLY around mid-December in the United States; so much so that if were one to go by the strict, technical definitions of WP:EVENT and the number of reliable sources that the topic appears in, could justify a List of 2012 Presidential Christmas Gifts article.  But the fact that everything the President of the United States does or says is scrutinized, picked apart and analyzed makes it routine, and therefore not terribly notable or important.  The same goes for politicians, who in today's political climate are virtually guaranteed to piss off 45-50% of the electorate no matter what they say.  The things politicians say that other people don't like is no longer notable, unless it truly hits a read my lips critical mass.  Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc is correct: we can't create coverage where there is none, but we can distill and opt not to include coverage when it is not encyclopedically appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mixing the layman usage of "notable" with the technical, objective definition we want to use here. That it's "routine" to cover such stuff doesn't mean it is like the everyday weather. If there are WP:RS for the presidential Christmas gifts, the article could be absolutely appropriate, maybe as a whole List of Presidential Christmas Gifts more than a year-by-year one. "Encyclopedically appropriate", per se is a circular and subjective criteria, and as such nonsense: what is "encyclopedically appropriate" is whatever sources give wide coverage. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Christmas gift" bit was an example of the type of extremely idiotic article that one could create if one robotically, knee-jerkily followed the technical letter of the project's notability guidelines, without pouring in an ounce of common sense or thought to the matter. We're not fucking robots, Cyclopia, we're not simplistic regurgitators of what happens in the real world.  We're editors.  Like newspaper editors, we trim, rule in, rule out, and devise methods for what is print-worthy and what is detritus.  If you can't see that, then you are an alarming, destructive, and over all net-negative presence in this project. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense is not an objective criteria and it is hardly "sense", usually, so I don't care about it. We are not robots but we should be: if this encyclopedia is not algorithmically generated is only because we humans are still much better than computers to generate one. But our subjectivity is mostly a bug, not a feature. The point is that the "trim, rule in, rule out" is already made for us by the RS editors you speak about: we here should only care about condensing this already-digested information, taking care our presentation is WP:NPOV, etc. We already devised a method for "what is print-worthy and what is detritus", and it is our assessment of the coverage by sources by WP:N and related guidelines. I'm sorry you want a subjectivity-driven work, but this would be against the aim of a neutral and unbiased encyclopedia. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N is only an inclusion guideline that is overriden by several content policies; if content fails to meet these content guidelines, we don't include it even if WP:N is believed met. In this case we have an article that goes out of its way to be inheriently POV against Alan Jones, and puts undue weight on trying to find every possible negative statement against that. That's a huge problem. A brief summary (as we should be) of the incident should be mentioned, yes, since it basically appears to have killed his radio show, but we don't need to detail everything as a tertiary source.  This is where Wikinews should be used, instead, to provide in-detail coverage that an encyclopedia simply can't. --M ASEM  (t) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * POV problems are dealt with editing and possibly renaming, not deletion, so it has no relevance in this discussion. Undue weight concerns applies to sections of content within articles, not to articles as a whole. If anything, the existence of this article allows to cover the incident in detail while avoiding undue weight concerns in the main bio. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that the current two-paragraph section in the Alan Jones article does cover the topic in about as non-POV as one can already, and includes nearly all the major points that are given here. And the level of detail there is actually appropriate for a tertiary work: Jones uttered a line that insulted others politically; he later regretted, but the damage was done, and his show was basically killed. Or to restart this: if I were to take this current article, trim out and clean up everything that is heavily POV and undue, as well as trimming out some of the full quotes, I would be left with a 2-3 paragraph article that basically is like what is already at Alan Jones. Thus there is no need for this article in light of this.  Again, this being an event, the level of detail for an encyclopedia should be the long term implications, not the immediate reactions, which are more appropriate for Wikinews. As save for Jones' show and career there are no long term implications, the detail of coverage currently here is improper. --M ASEM  (t) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "career being killed". Jones increased his market share and the show consequently earns even more revenue. This is like those "boycott McDonalds" campaigns you see from time to time. A minor ripple in sales, more than compensated by the publicity generated as new consumers tune in to see for themselves. This event is notable for the wider political ramifications, one of which has been to turn Parliament into an even more toxic place where harridans and spivs try to outshout each other. --Pete (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence in the present article of "wider political ramifications". Yes, there are statements from sitting politicans, but that's it, statements. The only "impact" that this article shows that can be demonstrated by sources is the impact on the show and the harm to Jones' reputation. --M ASEM  (t) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs some work, then. It's set up as an attack piece. Jones annoys a lot of people here, who are happy to use Wikipedia to retaliate. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem - this topic, by its nature, is NPOV because there's little favorable about the subject; every reaction, by its nature, will be negative. We can certainly write about it in off-handed, non-POV manner (that is, not introducing any language that POVs the issue one way or another) but by the very nature, the bulk of the material will still be POV-ish. Because we can't provide balanced coverage, and there's no lingering impacts, it should be trimmed to the important facts (Jones' screwed up, short term backlash, impact on his radio show) as already done at his article; a new topic is completely inappropriate. --M ASEM (t) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is total nonsense. Facts are not POV. If there is little favorable about the subject, that's not a POV problem, it's a reality issue. NPOV does not mean "equal doses of good and bad", it means "telling facts without putting subjective judgement". -- Cycl o pia talk  18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But the problem here is that the number of "pile on" statements - yes which are all facts - pushes the POV-ness of the article. Yes, there is no way to cover this issue (somewhere) that provides completely balanced viewpoints because its clear that the bulk of sourcing put Jones in a bad light, and we can't change that.  But we can, as a tertiary source, recognize that we can easily summarize that "A lot of people resented Jones for that remark" without quoting or citing every single such source.  For example, in the present article, the several quotes under "Reaction" are excessive; the only quote that is immediately needed is from the person the faux pas was made at: Julia Gillard. The rest are obvious reaction statements, that can be easily summarized that "Several members of Parliment were critical of Jones' statement." We can certainly inline source them all, but the excessive quoting is just piling on what is already a bad situation.  As noted, this is what the present two-paragraph section in Jones' personal article already does without pushing any more POV than the topic already needs. --M ASEM  (t) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't work, because summarising one of the dominant Australian political stories of 2012 as merely "A lot of people resented Jones for that remark" is both an extremely original (and creative) reading of the sources, and an extremely biased account of them. Anyone who read an account of this affair that was as brief as you account would assume that either a) the author was either ignorant/non-Australian, or b) was a particularly ardent Jones fan. As such, the NPOV argument doesn't really fly in the least. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that no one has explained or included anything to show how this extends as a "dominant Australian political story", when all that has happened is one vocal radio show host said a major faux pas that has come back to harm his career. I'm not seeing anything in this discussion or that article to suggest that anyone else's political future is going to be changed due to this.  It is, as exampled above, trying to make a huge deal of Romney's "binder full of women" - it had very short term repercussions, but didn't likely influence the election and certainly a long-forgotten element of the debates. This goes back to understanding that this clearly (as show and with whatever demonstration there is) that this does not met the notability set by EVENT and thus shouldn't be an article in the first place. I'd love to be wrong that there's lots of reliable source showing political fallout that extends past Jones due to this statement, but that's simply not being shown by those that want to keep this. --M ASEM  (t) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (missed signature)
 * The political ripples extended into Parliament, where Prime Minister Julia Gillard gave Opposition Leader Tony Abbott a spray. The resulting video went around the world, and put the (female) DOL on the attack, while Abbott has suffered a drop in popularity amongst female voters. Given the knife-edge nature of Australian federal politics at the moment, this has a significance perhaps not visible to non-Australians. Our article should explain this more fully. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's very telling that many of the delete !votes seem to be coming from non-Australian users, who seem to be drawing comparisons to American issues that don't really fit in the situation. They may be more susceptible to arguing because the current state of the article isn't what it could be, than people who actually have access to Australian media. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is what is happening, please provide the sources that link Jones' statement to this politically charged situation. The connection that is being argued is fundamentally synthetic - it may be true but there's no reliable sourcing that makes the connection and thus is OR. But even then, this then makes this controversy one drop in the bucket of the larger political machine if they were already on a knife's edge, making the reason to keep this article even less necessary. And as to sourcing, Australia is certainly not an Internet backwater as some other countries, so it should be easy to find such sources that make all these necessary connections. --M ASEM  (t) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the New Yorker, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Sydney Morning Herald again, and the Herald Sun enough? That took me five minutes on Google. Again, equating this to "binders full of women" (which, I note, is not presently proposed for deletion even though it's less notable than this) relies on either a) being ignorant of Australian media and politics, or b) living under a rock. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article contains multiple sources making the connection. Perhaps editors should read the thing before !voting on whether to delete or not. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are helpful, but again suggest there is a larger topic that emphasizes this current discourse in the AU gov't and would de-emphize the negative POV-ness of this on Jones. They read as that Jones tipped something that was already teetering, so the blame cannot go on him for the political ramifications; he is certainly a factor in that now, but not the igniter. (That's how I'm reading them, I may be wrong).  If that is the case, this article is still inappropriate, though one could then argue (assuming this broader situation doesn't already have an article) this can be moved to a name that properly reflects the larger discourse currently afoot; the direct impact on Jones would be well-summarized by the current two-paragraph section already on his bio article.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that he *was* the igniter - he made the speech, the media attention on misogyny in public life exploded, it involved the government, and then it continued to blow up from there. This whole political storm did not exist before Jones made this speech, and you'd be struggling to find an article on the topic in a reliable source even immediately prior to the Jones furore. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am asking in trying to understand because it is not made clear in these articles (there's a presumption the reader knows of events before), but as I note, I get the impression that something was about to go - political hostiles were already there before Jones' misquote. Is this a prelude to an election or a political appointment? Is there some law that is about to be passed/introduced/debated that this discussion is influencing? The reason I ask is that if this is not connected to any major gov't/political event, it feels simply like the usual posturing and politicking that happens in any gov't, and covering it in any depth without knowing where it's going is presuming notability that is yet established, making this information better suited on Wikinews (barring the influence on Jones' life). If this is connected to a larger issue, then it makes to include this discussion as part of this context because as it stands right now, despite being heavily in the news, it reads as if some tempers were flared based on a misstatement from out of nowhere. And maybe that's the problem. We're lacking context here (particularly those of us not in the US). The fact that we have politicians using Jones' words to attack their opponents means there's bad blood already there but this needs to be explained. I'm thinking that there's still a way that this incident can be covered on WP, but I am pretty confident that an article under this current title is not the right way. --M ASEM (t) 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that this article could be a lot better written in terms of political context and explaining the issue to non-Australians, but this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not whether it could be better written. In answer to your questions, there is a minority government in Australia, which means there has been intense political conflict ever since 2010, and an election due next year. I can readily accept that some of these are not notable (witness today's flash-in-the-pan AWU scandal, which should probably be deleted), but this one is not one of them. I think folding this into a broader article doesn't really work, in that it (and Gillard's speech, which may well go down as the thing she's most remembered for as PM) are separate but related notable events. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've just established how to help this article (to some degree), because explaining this is pre-election year posturing involving the minority government (which does happen here) is a critical element of this. That sheds light as to why a mis-state flared off numerous people. This would certainly help establish the notability/importance of this mess a bit better, though I still think there might be a better broader article though I would have to review the American elections articles to see how far back such things happen. But we're getting better here. --M ASEM (t) 00:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Out of morbid curiosity, how did this discussion thread out from my contribution to the debate? I'm baffled, since I didn't discuss "gotcha" politics.  Horologium  (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)