Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. A copy of the page history is available at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox if needed for attribution of the merge - see WP:MAD. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 rugby union handbag controversy

2006 rugby union handbag controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals. Have already merged the relevant information into Tana Umaga and Chris Masoe after no responses to a merge suggestion. Was going to redirect, but think it is unlikely to be used as a search term. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The incident had significant press coverage at the time. The various spin-offs from the incident are mentioned in the article, and do not really fit into Wikipedia biographies of the players.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this would be a no brainer and did not put in enough information about why I think it should be deleted. My bad. Basically I am questioning the enduring notability of the event. Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol than this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion. The Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly agree that it was notable at the time. We disagree about its enduring notability. I cannot see any harm in keeping this article; and there is clear benefit in keeping it. The page view statistics over the last year are respectable.
  • 2011 Jan - 376
  • 2010 Dec - 355
  • 2010 Nov - 835
  • 2010 Oct - 687
  • 2010 Sep - 705
  • 2010 Aug - 796
  • 2010 Jul - 437
  • 2010 Jun - 351
  • 2010 May - 470
  • 2010 Apr - 449
  • 2010 Mar - 796
  • 2010 Feb - 417
  • 2010 Jan - 441
--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion of nominator, "Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals."
Opinion of WP:RS based in London, "one of the most celebrated, at least in Australia, moments in New Zealand rugby history."
Note: it is not considered a scandal, but an "incident".
Opinion of nominator, "I am questioning the [[ Wikipedia:Not_news | enduring notability ]] of the event.  Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol"
The opinion of a book, which is not a newspaper, and is opinion published more than a year after the incident documents an "infamous" handbag auction, and a "notorious handbag".
Note: It seems that the auction is as famous as the incident.  New Zealand only lists a population of 4 million, yet this one New Zealand auction site received 1 million pageviews in a two-day auction.  So this is as much an IT story and a cultural phenomenon as a sports story.  IMO, putting an IT story and a cultural phenomenon under Tana Umaga is pointless just to remove an article title from Wikipedia.
Nominator states, "...this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion...".  I have not yet found a reliable source to verify the press distortion aspect.  The source for this idea seems to be a credible blog.  Another unreliable source claims that all of the TV News reports led off with the story of the handbag auction and had video of the incident.  At the same time, the 1 million pageviews on the auction site is indirect evidence of a strong press involvement.  More research is needed to get the whole story, meanwhile, the basic idea that media distortion makes the incident less notable is to me counter-intuitive.  I think it is just the opposite, an example of clearly-proven media distortion would make this incident textbook material for university classes in journalism.  Has anyone here seen the CCTV footage?
An undeveloped aspect of this story is a connection to the Queen of England, who may have talked about this incident with Umaga.  A potentially verifiable part of the story is that there is a cartoon in a Wellington newspaper with both the queen and handbags.
Nominator states, "the Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind." Being in the US, I know that Keith Olbermann is not a "sports broadcaster", he has name-recognition status (meaning he is famous) in the US for political opinion.  Personal opinions of Wikipedians are just that, MSNBC is generally a WP:RS, and recognition by Keith Olbermann is substantial recognition.
I placed this article on the rescue list because this nomination is a perfect candidate for the challenge there to take an AfD to "featured article" status in six months. Since no one there has shown interest, I'm proceeding to post here.
I do have a problem with the name of this article, the reliable references that I have seen are calling this an "incident", it is the "credible blog" I mentioned earlier that calls it a "controversy".
As for the theory that this is a "minor news story", I think that "media circus" is a better short description.
As for the positions that this fails "What Wikipedia is not" (WP:NOTNEWS), the publication of the book, which is not a news source, and is an enduring media, calling the auction "infamous" and the handbag "notorious", displaces those arguments; in addition, this was never just one news event.
In summary, this is not just a sports story, it is a story of enduring human interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Tana Umaga article already mentioned the incident so I didn't add that much (a ref and some slight elaboration). I added a section to Chris Masoe however as there was no mention of the incident. It may also be worth a sentence or two at Haka (sports), (Trade Me already has it). AIRcorn (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added two more books to the "Policy issues" section.  Each of these books, one from September 2007, and one from March 2009, is looking at the cultural insensitivity of the Handbag Haka.  Reyk, thank you for your opinion about other people's delete opinions, but how does this improve the encyclopedia?  We don't know your opinion, nor do we know your opinion about the relationship between non-news sources (books) and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS).  Is a book written three years after these events news?  How do you explain multiple reliable sources calling various of these events "famous" or "infamous"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the underarm incident is a great example of a minor incident being blown out of proportion, but having enduring notability. Rules were changed, leaders made public statements about it, whole sections in books were devoted to the incident and articles are still written about it 30 years later. Despite Unscintillatings excellent work on this article the only mentions beyond 2006 are little more than a footnote in a book about Trade Me and a sentence in another book (which talks about a second advertisement at the same time). I can't access the third book so can not comment on its contents (but its encyclopaedic value looks questionable). AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a blockquote of Amazon's description of the book, Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep: PC Tales from the Unhinged Kingdom:

Product Description
Presenting wonderful examples of the political correctness gone absurd, this collection reflects on cases of authority who take themselves too seriously. From the army to city councils, this title features true and amusing blunders in political correctness.

Regarding the 'handbag haka', I found internet chatter from 2010, 25 messages long, trading insults about the 'handbag haka' (I searched for ["handbag haka" 2010].  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I found a 2010 book that is partially named after the incident and added it to the article tonight, Handbags and hovercrafts.  I've also found two political cartoons stored at the NZ National Library, one coupling the queen and the incident, and one coupling the queen and the auction, and added them to the article. Here are the shortcuts to the full-size cartoons, here and here.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS What next, an article about the time the Wallabies ignored the Haka? The underarm bowling incident had huge repercussions including a change in the laws of the game. The 20th anniversary of the underarm earlier this month saw feature articles in all Australian dailies. By contrast, "Handbag-gate" has already been forgotten on this side of the ditch. IMO, the whole thing was a beat up to begin with. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three recent posts to show that the 2006 incident is part of the current rugby culture.
  1. "or when Tana Umaga used a handbag as a weapon", 10-February-2011
  2. Rugby - Designated spot for Aussies and Kiwis to handbag each other Jan 12, 2011.
  3. "I guess thats why Handbag and Cry Baby were still All Blacks after their night out !!!! If they were Wallabies the would be band." 18th December 2010 (Masoe reportedly cried or at least was upset after being swatted with the handbag.)
In addition, someone that knows the rugby culture might look at this and interpret. This Google search returns five results. It appears that the word "handbag" has taken on a new meaning in describing a rugby game: site:http://www.rugby.com.au handbag  Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment  (1) WP:NOTNEWS only applies to single events.  (2) Books trump WP:NOTNEWS because they are not news.  The policy that applies is WP:Notability (events), "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else."

What we have here is six events, where events (2) through (6) were triggered by the first:

  1. May 28 the incident at the Jolly Poacher. (current iconic image in 2011 between NZ and AU)
  2. May 28 to Jun 5 possible media distortion (not verified) (blog article written in October 2010)
  3. Jun 2-3 the handbag auction (major cultural event, auction reported in two books about the auction house, featured in title of the second book written in 2010)
  4. Jun 5 the Queens' Birthday Honour to Umaga with handbag images (only two cartoons verified)
  5. Jun 5 the attempted auction of the CCTV footage, privacy issues (last known reference in Sep 2006)
  6. Jul 6 the 'handbag haka' advert, cultural sensitivity issues (survives in two books as an example of a policy issue)

Each of these six has claim to enduring notability.  But (1), (3), and (6) have stood the test of time.  Given that the handbag auction received prominent placement in the 2010 book, and the apparent impact on NZ society as it transpired, it is probably the most notable.  Note that only the first of these six events is a sports event.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Having read through the article I'd say have to say keep. It isn't just one news event. Many other things happened as a result, getting news coverage themselves. Part of the article reads: "Time Newspapers Ltd. based in London has stated that this incident was "one of the most celebrated, at least in Australia, moments in New Zealand rugby history."[1] So a major newspaper says its notable. The number of page hits is never a reason to delete something. Many pages for kings and presidents in countries few English speaking people know exist, get low views, as do many other things. Dream Focus 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User Unscintillating has demonstrated unwittingly this event had no lasting notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable fan idiocy. I really wanted to say delete on this one, but we have to go by the sources, especially the Time article cited by Dream Focus., DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard NOTNEWS case. All relevant information has already been merged into the articles about the players. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not news, and covered in player articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_rugby_union_handbag_controversy&oldid=1137513764"