Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillAgo (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 24 October 2012 (Merge / redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy

AfDs for this article:
Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Could possibly be merged with the candidate's biography. Keihatsu (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is almost verbatim of the AP article online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.130.162 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unencyclopedic topic. Merge a line or two into the candidate's bio, if desired; or not. I wish the elections were over. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much WP:SOAP in this comment for it to hold any weight in this discussion. --Topping (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious attack page. Fails to include mitigating information. William Jockusch (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How very diplomatically understated. The "mitigating information" includes the grammatical subject of the sentence being partially quoted, that subject being "Life". "Pregnancy from Rape" is nowhere to be found in any of the Mourdock statements, but is a paraphrase injected into the partial quote.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough info or media coverage; recommend move to candidate page. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - speedy wise - Carrite covered it all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly has enough sources to be WP:N. The story should not simply be merged because of its relation to the Romney Campaign(He just cut an add for him today), which is also being covered. Casprings (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Within the Richard Mourdock article, the sources contribute to the WP:GNG of the Richard Mourdock biography topic. However, when you move the controversy sources into their own stand alone article, they no longer are independent of the topic - the controversy sources are part of controversy topic. In that regard, the controversy sources need to have news articles (or books, or magazines, etc.) writing about them to provide the independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Here, the topic fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There does appear to be precedent since the Legitimate rape controversy already has its own article, Mourdock's remarks are attracting similar levels of attention and there have been a lot of comparisons between the two cases. Actually, maybe just having one article (2012 rape controversies in United States politics?) might be another option since rape, and Republican politicians' inarticulate comments relating to the same, seems to be one of the big issues of the 2012 election season. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The specific issue has received in-depth coverage by multiple sources in the prestige press, including CBS News[1], the Boston Globe[2], the New York Times[3], CNN[4], the Washington Post[5], and the Los Angeles Times[6], amongst many others. If that's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then nothing is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everything that gets coverage, even as that quote says, gets an article. This is an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it your political blogWhatzinaname (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incredibly hastily created. This is the very point of WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge to United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92Talk 05:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:RS is overwhelming for this. The sources are international, the most prominent, and wildly viral. There is not a single Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of an article with sources this substantial. I suppose there are certain partisans who would not care for the article's existence, but we cannot listen to bias. We must follow policy. We rarely, rarely, rarely see WP:RS of this level and magnitude. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I can't stand Mourdock or what he said, but inclusion as a separate article on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sources or their virality. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOT#NEWS forbids, and there is no reason whatsoever why the multitude of sources cannot be used to create detailed subsections in United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92Talk 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while articles on current events are better started at a related article (such as the presidential campaign or the candidate article), then given their own article as details can flesh it out, this is widely reported on, and deleting it now is an almost guaranteed long term error, as this is in all likelihood not going away, and is drawing responses from the 2 prez candidates. side note: it would have to be redirected, not deleted, though the current article title is a highly unlikely search term. And, a redirect would allow for easy and instant recreation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't deserving of its own article. Make a new section on Mourdock's page. Also, the wording and capitalization in the title of this article is atrocious. lukini (talk | contribs) 15:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's news-worthy with numerous independent sources. We can decide whether it deserves it's own page after the hype dies down. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I renamed the article, removing the wording and capitalization problems in the process. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not every notable event in the universe (or in the news media) needs its own article. It is better to cover this development in the context of is campaign rather than as a stand-alone article. Also, if this does survive, it clearly needs to be renamed to something shorter. Dragons flight (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, I found this because the article is now linked on Google News. Dragons flight (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous article. Merge content into Richard Mourdock article, done. --JaGatalk 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the Legitimate rape article is notable enough, I don't see why this one isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.251.178 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not notable enough. It was the wrong AfD decision based on WP:RECENTISM and I intend to bring that article back to AfD after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you goddamn shitting me? This gets an article? Keep it to the Indiana Senate campaign and Mourdock articles and leave it at that. This is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as the Legitimate Rape article. Czolgolz (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt Absolutely no question this is a Speedy delete, and should not be up for a week under AfD. Pure attack article, and designation of this as a "controversy" takes opinion and puts it as fact in WP's voice. Truth is, Mourdock has always had a clear, well explained (though not shared by many) position on abortion exceptions. If you read the whole quote, he explains his position clearly, and why, and is respectful of other viewpoints. While his view is not mainstream, even in his party, his justification, as a whole sounds reasonable. It sounds controversial when paraphrased or when the quote is edited, and not without those "enhancements". Attack article, and created, as are most attack articles, to circumvent WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV/WP:BLP on the Mourdock or Senate campaign Articles. Therefore also a WP:FORK.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Richard Mourdock: premature. While Todd Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments did become notable enough and generate enough controversy to justify a separate article, these haven't yet. Let's wait and see if this actually develops into a significant story before splitting it out. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • of course, Akin and Mourdock comments are as alike as apples and screwdrivers. Akin's, in context or out, were strange in the extreme. If you put Murdock's into a section on his views on Abortion, but of course THE WHOLE QUOTE, they would be succinct, accurate and reasoned, a ready made WP:NPOV entry, whether you agree with them or not (and many disagree, including most of his party). The hand-waving and screams both on and off WP that "this is controversial", and "this is a controversy" is what makes this controversial. The quote should be allowed to stand on its own, in the Mourdock article, and a note that some consider it controversial. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Absurd to give this an article; it belongs in the senate section. Truthsort (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mention in the candidate's bio should be enough. God, I can't wait for this election season to be over. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep: Title way too long; these types of ridiculous comments obviously need their own article. Merge to section in Richard Mourdock unless becomes big controversy like Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy. This is first time I've heard of it. CarolMooreDC 19:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is nowhere near notable enough for its own page. All these single pages for these controversies is turning Wikipedia into a tabloid. Transcendence (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless this blows up more and affects the 2012 election, it should be merged. No problem to KEEP it for a week or so meanwhile. Do NOT DELETE without a good faith effort to merge it into the main page on the candidate. Wxidea (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Absolutely notable, but it can be covered in Richard Mourdock just fine. The title is especially problematic; I'm not sure that it's even possible to make a title that's unbiased, without it being either ambiguous or ridiculously long. The current title makes it seem like Mourdock is suggesting that the hypothetical rape itself would be intended by god...which isn't what he was saying. Whether or not the title can be fixed, I still think it's ridiculous as a standalone article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge redirect revelant but would merge in his page and redirect. --KillAgo (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Mourdock_pregnancy_from_rape_Is_%27something_god_intended%27_controversy&oldid=519645787"