Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Jones_%22died_of_shame%22_controversy_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy}})

The article largely replicates content that's already covered in Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Almost all the references come from the same seven day period (2-9 Oct). The content and sources are fine, but there just isn't enough to justify a seperate article. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Minor events do not get their own articles -- and this one includes OR such as Nielsen ratings for two periods which were in different seasons, seeking to make an implicit claim of specific loss of listeners due to the "controversy" etc. This "article" treads on the very edge (possibly passing that edge) of WP:BLP and has undue weight for what is a minor controversy already covered in the main BLP. Collect (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:: it was not a minor controversy, it had international coverage and a major effect on advertisers on a major Australian radio station. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Two years on, this event remains inevitably attached to discussion of both Jones, one of the most significant media presences in Australia, and to any discussion of the public treatment of former Prime Minister Gillard. Destroy the Joint, the group founded in response, also continues to be one of the more significant feminist voices in Australia. Google News still turns up hits for the saga in the last month, two years after the fact. The passage of time reinforces the notability of the saga, and attacking it on the basis that most of the current sources used are from when the article was first written is just lazy behaviour on the part of the nominator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment there's intersection with the article Misogyny speech which was spurred by this controversy. Possibly a more general article on Julia Gillard misogyny controversy could be created by merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• There is definitely a link, but I think merging them would be drawing a long bow (and delving into the edges of original research). They're quite separate but linked events. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Ongoing, international coverage from [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/25/gillard-ridiculed-knitting-royal-kangaroo The Guardian] and the [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20794176 BBC] in the UK and [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/in-australia-misogyny-lives-on.html?_r=0 The New York Times] in the US. I'm not too keen on these "controversy about " articles, but this one easily satisfies WP:EVENT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• keep as above and here's additional coverage well after the event [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ernies-tony-abbott-given-repeat-offender-award-for-sexist-comments-20131010-2v9dz.html], [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3798662.htm], and [http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/12/australian-pm-julia-gillard-hits-out-at-rival-partys-dig-at-her-small-breasts-and-huge-thighs-on-fundraiser-menu-3838163/ UK coverage]. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• keep this article relates to Gillard, Rudd, Jones and Abbott. If we delete it we would have to merge it into all those four articles and hence create several times more material. This is also a part of Australian history which relates to two spills and a change of government, that in itself gives it notability. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep — Having had some time to review the article in question, I'm convinced that it should be retained. Whilst I do believe it is a little edgy on the BLP matter {{U|Collect}} noted; I tend to agree with {{U|NinjaRobotPirate}}'s rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - very well sourced. Merger would be a mess, per Djapa. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2014 (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.