Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

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 no consensus. There seems to be a consensus against the deletion of this material. I do not believe that the community has come to a consensus as to whether this deserves its own article or should be merged into another. Therefore: no consensus between Keep and Merge with the suggestion that a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

News article masquerading as encyclopaedic. This is a content fork (WP:FORK) of Todd Akin, padded with quotes.

Although the matter has impact on the 2012 elections & Akin's career the reportage is fairly routine for election season. Per WP:EVENT we lack examples of enduring coverage - if the matter continues to make the news in the future then it may pass notability requirements, but it simply cannot now.

The standalone nature of this article is undue and the matter can happily be handled at Todd Akin, rendering this article useless (except as a dumping ground for more scandal).

Finally; per WP:EVENT we lack a diversity of sources; it is basically coverage of what he said, then various supporters or detractors commenting on it.

I'd support either a transwiki move to WikiNews (an appropriate venue for this content) or redirection/merge to Todd Akin. Errant ^(chat!) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS This should be an entry in his bio. It should, however, not become the sole focus of the bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back- it has great information and citations that can't be replaced, but the article is based on one event. In many such situations in the past, we merged such controversies back into the main article. Now, if he drops out of the race, a re-split may be needed. We'll burn that bridge when we cross it. Bearian (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. M.S.K. (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Better to isolate current events away from the main article for many reasons. Merge back a year from now if still a concern. Rorybowman (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Before I vote, please name some. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:N. It has hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days. A simply google news search shows the number of reliable sources. If it had only been the comments from Akin, I would agree. But the calls for him to get out and other aspect make the vote a keep. It is a a multi day national news story. Plus the article is important to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 Casprings (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how it passes WP:N, particularly WP:EVENT. I highlighted specific problems (though only the main ones) which you might like to address. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is a multi day story with hundreds of reliable sources. His actions, his apology, the calls by fellow republicans for him to step down, and the pulling of funding from the race are all national news stories. Clearly this meets WP:N and has enough WP:RS to do so.

• As I noted; this is election season, the comment is controversial. The level of coverage is not especially compelling. The matter you describe certainly appears to be easily covered in his biography - but I think you lack a diversity of sources and lasting coverage beyond the usual news cycle (which is what WP:EVENT requires). We aren't even beyond the usual news cycle, so you simply cannot meet this requirement. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AVOIDSPLIT also comes to mind. Just because there are multiple reliable sources does not in of itself justify splitting content from the main article. Wait until there is a WP:SIZE issue, or until the event is definitive in its own sense (which cannot be established during the shark-feeding-frenzy-news-cycle) that it becomes the first thought associated with the man's name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This is basically a shining example of political scandal of the week/day/hour. It deserves to be Akin's article, and any article on this year's 2012 Missouri Senate race, but no more....William 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Political scandals that meet WP:N get an article. See Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy Casprings (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• And this looks to be a bigger deal than the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The ink isn't even dry on this newspaper story yet. If he resigns this item belongs back in the article, if he pulls off a miraculous victory, this item still belongs back in the article.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Roanoke_Obama_campaign_speech you stated "We must keep in mind the campaign responded to the controversy". This applies here as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Could you clarify? I don't see which of the four bullet points of NOTNEWSPAPER could possibly apply here. This is not original journalism, nor "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities ", nor a who's who, nor a diary. Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Editors quoting "WPNOTNEWS" might re-read WP:RAPID. Todd Akin went from little-known outside his state to international news overnight, generating more coverage in two days than he's likely had in his career to date. I can only assume the editors who argue this will have no significant follow-up coverage after today are joking--people still write about George Allen's macaca incident in 2000, and this is that turned up to eleven. To give a tiny example of the sort of detailed coverage this is receiving, check out this supplementary piece in the UK newspaper The Guardian explaining the origins of rape-pregnancy myths.[1] Attempting to summarize all this coverage (and the coming further coverage) in Todd Akin's article is impractical and would create a serious imbalance, making this WP:SPINOFF the best option. Wikipedia shouldn't have to wait four years to cover this in a substantive way. Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, btw, to any editors who feel this is getting undue attention: Todd Akin's previous life, including ten years in Congress, generates 1,270 results in Google News Archives. Todd Akin gets 88,100 hits in current Google News. While these numbers obviously don't indicate quality of sources, it gives at least a rough idea of the notability of this incident compared to his biography to date. Using raw numbers, Akin's article would need to become 97% about this controversy to give it its due weight, and that's assuming not another word is written about it. For that reason, a spinoff seems like an obviously better solution. Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or you might want to actually read WP:RAPID - "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate". It says nothing about whether an article should be deleted once it is nominated. Rank-one map (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Have read it, thanks. "It is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge" seems to me an equally sound recommendation for both the initial nominator and for those rushing to vote delete in the first 12 hours. Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And what justifies the split of this topic from the primary subject, Todd Akin? His article is tiny, C-class, and full of point form. It should be expanded, instead of a new article on a facet of an individual's life. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Its rarely possible to determine the level of importance of an event like this while it is still churning. Whether this is a new "Read my lips: no new taxes" kind of moment, or something less, we won't know for awhile. So whatever the outcome of this AfD, revisiting in 6 months may be good idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We do not wait to retroactively justify the notability of an article. Delete it and re-create it in six months if someone finds it worthwhile. Rank-one map (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, this issue is currently progressing though the 24-hour news cycle. However, as far as we know right now, it's just a news story. We are an encyclopedia, not a chronicle of what was momentarily controversial in late August 2012. This likely merits some sort of mention in the Todd Akin article, always keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. szyslak (t) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (minor correction by szyslak (t) 12:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC))
• Keep (for now). Impressive coverage of current affair. Nothing present requiring deletion. When it becomes old, in a week or so, merge and redirect back to the main article as per any content fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Am I understanding your opinion correctly that you believe it is, or should be, standard practice to create a new article about a current event for as long as it remains relevant, even if that's only a week, and then to merge it back into another article? If that's a misunderstanding, could you please clarify? Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that it is, though not that it should be. I believe that it is a hopeless fight, to eliminate US NEWS cycle politics-related forks from new article coverage. I also believe that it is net-negative to fight via AfD, because it drives away new contributors. I think that Wikipedians should take a long term view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• And I believe you are saying that you want to change Wikipedia policies - which is certainly an admirable venture. But until you achieve that, how about we stick with current policies - all of which point to deletion? Rank-one map (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The coverage currently in the Todd Akin article seems sufficient at this time. If the incident does achieve longstanding significance outside of the career of this particular politician, then by all means a stand-alone article might be justified in the future. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly meets WP:N. I agree that hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days makes this verifiable. A google news search, the number of reliable sources and the video replays show that this article is being accurately portrayed. Does this embarrass Republicans? It does. But the calls for him to get out of the race by other Republicans and other aspects make the vote a keep. It is a multi-day national news story and it is important to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 Casprings (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagabondthor (talk • contribs)
  • Another topic that received hundreds of reliable sources over multiple days is Kanye West rumored to be joining judges on American Idol. Strangely, it has no article of its own. The sheer number of news articles covering a topic has never been regarded as a sufficient source of notability, even if misinformed users continue to churn out the same bland rationale. Rank-one map (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back for the same reason we don't have a Wide stance article versus a redirect. Wikipedia is not the news, and there's no compelling reason for this subject to have it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But Wide stance redirects to Larry Craig scandal?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct. However, that was an arrest, which is a much bigger deal than a quote. It's possible it could become something bigger, but a standalone article is still premature at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• delete Undue emphasis 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back to Todd Akin. This article is still short enough that it can satisfactorily be included in the main article; and I don't think the controversy is so notable that we must have a separate article for it (although it might yet become so, e.g. in the event that it leads to Akin's resignation). Robofish (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back for now per Milowent -- difficult to say anything until the tide of interest has crested. a13ean (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back At this time, the impact of his statement seems limited in scope, especially since he has immediately retracted his comment. I feel we can contain this in Todd Akin page. However, if the repercussions span further in the coming weeks, e.g., new law drafted and proposed or march on the Capitol or bid to overturning of Roe v. Wade, then we might be able to justify keeping the article. The title "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" would be fine. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back Article's dripping in WP:Recentism, just happened, and fails the WP:Event rule John D. Rockerduck (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• weak merge back There are a lot of details but right now I think we can reasonably include them in the primary Akin article. This is only a weak call for merging because I suspect strongly that there will be more than enough in a few days to easily justify a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Changing opinion to keep. Sonicyouth86's sources and continuing coverage indicate that this is large enough to have its own article. This is enough of a series of ongoing matter that it doesn't count as one event. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Besides overwhelmingly passing WP:GNG of WP:NOTABILITY, this is already having unprecedented repercussions in the Republican party garnering an outcry for resignations that hasn't been seen since Nixon. It would be willful ignorance to believe this controversy will magically be forgotten quickly. Far too much sourced topic-specific content to me merged to the biography article. WP:EVENT does not and has never "banned" articles about one event (this is an ongoing series of events actually). WP:EVENT is simply a guideline on how to deal with articles that are in fact about one event. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This has received considerable international coverage with some sources referring to it as "rapegate" and arguing that the ramifications for the GOP will be far-reaching: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Apart from the political hoopla, several sources have considered Akins's comments from a scholarly perspective, suggesting that they exemplify Rape myths which is an academic concept in its own right. I believe this has lasting power: Keep and revisit in six months. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - Election 2012 fooliganism. A few sentences under his biography and/or a piece on the Missouri Senate race would be appropriate, this is essentially a news summary of a current event clearly created with POV intent. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have this straight: in the face of days of coverage in international media, in which tens of thousands of reliable sources have now explored the case from angles ranging from the historical to the political to the academic to the scientific, you're proposing a 2-3 sentence limit on our coverage. And on top of that, you're accusing the article's supporters of bad-faith POV editing? You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that. Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since somebody else seems to have intervened with the strikethrough, I'm gonna answer. 1. My argument is based on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS — Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a summary of news stories, but an encyclopedia. 2. I nowhere use the word "limit." I only indicate an approximately proportionate magnitude for this incident in a personal biography, pending further developments. 3. Here's the last paragraph in the original version of this piece: "Some speculate that this controvosy could effect the 2012 Presidential election and the chances of a Republican take of the of US Senate.[12] Some point out that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, as worked closely with Rep. Akin while he has been in the house. For example, the Sanctity of Life Act was cosponsored by Ryan and Akin and would grant personhood to any fertilized human egg.[13]" — No apology from me here... Carrite (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This really belongs as a subsection of a proper article about medical myths about rape rather than one about this particular mythologizer, but to non-US readers it is a useful example of the importance and prevalence of such myths, and their role in determining US policy. Hopefully a proper article on the substantive issue will be forthcoming shortly. VEBott (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now, review later, with possible Merge & Redirect if in a month (or after the beginning of the new year) to see if the event passes effect. There is more than enough coverage for the subject to pass WP:GNG, that being said when editing this article we need to be careful to ensure it maintains neutral presentation of the subject. However, that being said, this is an WP:EVENT that has received very heavy recent coverage (since the event occurred less than 72 hours ago) but I can not determine whether this subject will be independently notable in the long run, and thus Merger or Deletion discussions can begin at some later point in time if it is then determined that the subject of this article passes WP:EFFECT or WP:N#TEMP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the article Todd Akin, and the history of the subject of this AfD, I find that there was already content (1305 20AUG12) on the Todd Akins article regarding the subject covered in this article we are considering when this article was created (1744 20AUG12). Therefore this article clearly falls under WP:CONTENTFORK (even though I do maintain that the subject is clearly notable in and of itself), so Merge & Redirect would make a good option. If the content regarding the subject of this article grows in the section of the Todd Akin articles to the point where the article gets to big per WP:LENGTH, this article can always be recreated as a sub-articleand a summary of the new article can be left in the Todd Akin's article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete no reason for a stand-alone article, we are not the news Hekerui (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, classic WP:CRYSTAL. It is possible this drama will develop into a game changing ruckus and then snowball into a politics and culture/paradigm changing event. It's possible it will eventually meet our criteria for WP:EVENT (gaffs by public figures in elections happen often, it's routine). But at the moment it's just a slip by a politician who said something unbelievably stupid, and is being badly burned for it in the media and may lose his career, and perhaps some ripples to his party or pro-life/pro-choice issues, or science/religion debate - or perhaps not. But right now all those are speculative, we don't have any evidence this will be less transient, more enduring, or have broader impact in its own right, compared to any other career-killing gaff. If the game changes then in a year or so, we can recreate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back for now Per Milowent. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into the senate race's page Wainstead (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. Palmwiz (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP I say Keep if he stays in the race, merge if he drops out. Could be the reason the race changes and as such is more notable. But if he drops out then he kills most of the reason for keeping. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into another article. In another few months it's likely that everyone will have forgotten about this quote. It seems unnecessary to have a separate article about every flash in the pan story that's in the news. Zeromus1 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. It's clearly notable but the incident is part of the election race and as such it should be part of the election article. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with merging back into the article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back for the time being, per Milowent. If coverage eventually extends beyond WP:RECENTISM or WP:1E status, the article can be re-created.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back. An independent article is completely unnecessary. This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL at best, WP:POVFORK at worst. Divisive political articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. And frankly, so are the individuals who create them. As FT2 noted above, if this turns out to have a long term WP:EFFECT, then we can recreate it later... but even then I think it will be violating WP:UNDUE. Trusilver 19:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to have an article for what this loser said. Merge to his article. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delay Per WP:RAPID 65.200.157.66 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - haven't read the above arguments, but merging seems the logical thing to do. It's been a slow news week, so this story dominated the cycle for 2 days. The narrative will continue, but really it's not a very notable event, controversial flubs / statements from politicians happen all the time. Danski14^(talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• KEEP Since he is staying in the race, this is very relevant and useful information. I wish there were more Wikipedia entries for current news events. I always look to Wikipedia for objective and relevant information. This issue is also related to political advertising by conservative groups against many democratic candidates. It is not just a slip of the lip but seems to represent a current in conservative thinking that tries to express itself in both legislation and political propaganda. More analysis and sources of how this kind of apology relating to the legitimization of aggressive and violent behavior would be enlightening and is a subject in itself apart from this particular incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacey9020 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the article currently contains more notable, sourced content that it would be appropriate to put into the biography article. It could be even longer based on what has already been published. Even if we assume that nothing further will be written (unlikely). Many of these "reactions" are notable enough to be included in an event article, but would be out of place in a biography. Savidan 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Concur, a number of independent sources are offering a picture of this article's subject as a discrete event, rather independently of Todd Akin's larger history suitable for an encyclopedic biography. Mr Wave (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The information available may be rapidly changing and news now, but as an event it is drawing sufficient coverage and commentary that it will likely continue to be a matter that is studied after this election. Even if he drops out this article covers a substantial event in the election campaign. The topic of this article stands to have lingering informative value, and it is time's job to demonstrate otherwise. Mr Wave (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Addenum As the impact of the covered event has continnued to unfold polling in Missouri is showing that the event may be effect both the senate election in Missouri and the United States Presidential election in Missouri. It doesn't seem that the content of this article could cleanly be merged into a single other article given its notability. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 04:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. A minor event affecting one corner of the world. No one has died, no has resigned, no one has been arrested... if this had occurred in Brazil or Nigeria it would never in a million years have been given its own entry. "Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." The rest of the world, if at all interested, is looking on this as relatively routine in the grander scheme of things. This type of thing happens everywhere all of the time. Politicians say nasty things, people get upset. Everywhere. All the time. Doesn't make them all notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the world is interested. This topic has has incredible amount of coverage all over the world. These are just some examples, Germany [18][19], France [20][21], Japan [22][23], China [24], Russia [25], Israel [26] and India [27]. --Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A politician killing their career is a standard news subject and you'll find plenty of newspaper coverage, but this isn't wikinews and the topic has no lasting notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete outright. This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • While I also have weighed in on the "delete" side, I have to say, that's not really much of a reason. American politics topics are not inherently non-notable. Could you expand on your reasoning? Kansan (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's an excellent reason. I live thousands of miles away, which gives me an objectivity about this. Wikipedians would never tolerate an article about a single gaffe made by a Chinese politician who's nowhere near party leadership level. We would delete it virtually instantly. What's affecting this debate is the fact that so many Wikipedians are Americans with no perspective on how unimportant their state-level politics really are, combined with the tendency of US elections to spill over into all forms of media and endure for about a trillion years per campaign. This happens because US politics involves splurging vast, enormous amounts of money on publicity. But all this amounts to is routine electoral coverage of a whole lot of (largely simulated) outrage from one party who're trying to make electoral capital and a whole lot of damage limitation from the other.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem remarkably confident in saying that the fact that you live thousands of miles away gives you an objectivity. I too live thousands of miles away (indeed, perhaps further away than you do), but all I would say is that perhaps this gives me objectivity, or that I hope it gives me objectivity. Still, I can objectively point out that here in Japan, Asahi Shinbun writes up this matter here, that Mainichi Shinbun writes it up here, that the local AFP writes it up here, and that the local Wall Street Journal writes it up here. ¶ Contrary to your suggestion that non-Americans (or people outside the US, or non-Americans outside the US) have the perspective to see how unimportant state-level US politics really is, I suggest that at least some of these people see clearly how political positions and postures become mainstream in the US and thereafter influence the world. For this reason, they're likely to be interested. True, there may also be a certain degree of spectator sport: "Those nutty US politicians do say the durnedest things!" But we needn't speculate why "serious" Japanese (and other) news sources talk about this; the salient fact is that they do talk about it. ¶ You claim that Wikipedians would never tolerate an article about a single gaffe made by a Chinese politician who's nowhere near party leadership level. If a Chinese politician, no matter how minor, came to world attention for a gaffe -- whether uttering bizarre pseudoscientific nonsense, instructing security forces to kill strikers, or doing something else risible or horrifying -- and there were reliable sources for this, and an article about it met Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines, I'd happily !vote "keep" in an AfD on the article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Serious political journalists are covering it here, too. That doesn't mean they take it seriously and it certainly doesn't make it an appropriate subject for an encyclopaedia article. What it means is that this is the silly season and political journalists here don't have anything of substance or import to talk about. It's essentially routine election coverage of a routine election gaffe. The flushing sound you hear is the sound of Todd Akin's political career going down the toilet, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should contribute to his pain or draw any further attention to what's largely a manufactured talking point.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm well aware of what's going on in the British press. You amaze me with the assertion that British political journalists lack anything of substance or import to talk about. Yes, Dave and Nick may be on vacation, but top two stories in the Guardian were, a few seconds ago: "Higher state borrowing prompts growth push" and "Greek PM pleads for more time". There do seem to be other things to talk about. And how unworthy of attention is this? This "routine election gaffe", as you call it, is rightly or wrongly presented by the Guardian as related to its story "Republican party endorses abortion ban without exceptions ahead of convention": now, you are free to call this ban silly, but I suspect that most US political figures would say it's a serious matter. An article in Wikipedia about a major brouhaha caused by extraordinary public utterances by somebody who's chosen to run for public office can and should calmly relate the facts of the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, Hoary, but I'm afraid that to me, it's quite plain that this event does not merit an encyclopaedia article. It's an entirely run of the mill gaffe of no lasting significance whatsoever. I accept that you disagree with this point in good faith, but as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
              • I live outside of America as well (in Australia, if that matters) and I consider events in American politics notable because they set the tone for other countries, especially Western ones. My own country's leaders, and many others, take their cues from American politics, giving events like the Akin comment a far wider reach than just Missouri.Euchrid (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Events which are only amplified because there is an election in the US aren't actually notable; after the election noone will care any more. All of this type of article need to go or be merged somewhere. That includes You didn't build that and any other articles built around perceived gaffs. They just aren't encyclopaedic and demonstrate a US-centric viewpoint. Incidents like these from other nations wouldn't get the time of day as a separate article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per notnews, undue, and WP:NODEADLINE. If this is notable, it can be incorporated into the main article in due time. It was given undue weight there in my opinioin, and this is far and away beyond that. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Todd Akin and pare down to comply with WP:UNDUE. The relevant section in the bio should include a link to Pregnancy from rape. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is becoming a national discussion about policy, and dominating news already for 4 days now. The discussion is not slowing or going away, and it affects one of the two majority party platforms and the presumptive vice presidential candidate for the upcoming US election. Once it dies down I would be fine with this being merged with Akin if that's all it is. 67.188.202.139 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now; it can be merged back in and redirectified later as perspective has its say. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The #akin hash tag has been trending for five days straight on Twitter: [28] This is a very significant news story. Just consider how many votes we see here. Can't imagine how anyone can suggest it isn't notable. Richard Myers (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back to Todd Akin, and copy some of the historical perspective into Pregnancy from rape and War on Women. Akin isnt saying something new here, and Akin isnt important in the grand scheme of things; the difference is that comments like his are part of the War on Women. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG for now. Highly notable and has not only been a local or even national story but an global one which in basic doesnt only effect America.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Received considerable international coverage and has become the trigger for considerable public controversy. Taragüí @ 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to Todd Akin. We don't need a fork every time a politician says something stupid. Just cover it in his main article and see if anyone still cares about his gaffe on Nov. 7. Kilopi (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back to Todd Akin - no justification for this single facet of a notable individual's life getting an article its own when the parent article is lacking comprehensiveness (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). Wikipedia should aim for the quality of articles, not the quantity. Several celebrity meltdown's over the past few years have garnered significant attention. The content is in the article on the actor rather than its own. Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson are two who come to mind. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back to Todd Akin. The level of necessary depth can easily be covered in the Todd Akin article without overwhelming it. If the volume of text from this event is overwhelming the Todd Akin article, the solution, per WP:UNDUE, is to pare it back until it is short enough, not to split it out and let it get more bloated. --Jayron32 03:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Todd Akin (or keep). Given that the content is mostly "reactions," it can probably be trimmed and kept in Akin's own article, which would then be linked from War on Women, Pregnancy from rape, etc. with no harm done. The incident has clearly had impact beyond Akin's own career, as seen from the fact that it killed Romney's lead in the presidential race in that state, but we could just link Akin's article from the campaign article. No problem with a keep, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep because obviously it's notable ad nauseum. Just make sure it's NPOV. I'm sure people will be referring to it, often inaccurately, for years so might as well have a good encyclopedic account. CarolMooreDC 13:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to pick on you Carol but; "obviously notable" is such a poor argument. Can you demonstrate or explain how it meets WP:EVENT? That is the key to this discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously notable, but that's not the only criteria. Overtime it's significance will become clearer. Don't see any reason for hasty deletion, per various others who have opined similarly. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

• Keep per WP:RAPID and we can revisit this later to determine whether notability has been established. While it is too early to determine duration of coverage or lasting effects, the guideline WP:EVENT supports inclusion on other levels. WP:EVENT says events are "very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." Articles in USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, The Hindu, The Australian, Time, Chicago Sun-Times as well as those listed above by Sonicyouth86 demonstrate both breadth (WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE) and depth (WP:INDEPTH) in coverage and also that this is not a routine news event. On the contrary, this is shaping up to be a pivotal moment in the 2012 US elections. Akin's career likely hinges on how this unfolds and the repercussions may have an impact on the Presidential election and the balance of the Senate. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/merge relevant content back to Akin's article; though WP:RAPID does suggest giving some time to see if there are any lasting impacts, realistically, political gaffe statements rarely have a lasting impact beyond that politician's career and any races s/he may be involved in. What's telling is that coverage seems to frequently compare this to the rape joke made during the 1990 Texas Governor's race, which is prominently covered in that man's article but justifiably is not a stand-alone article. Kansan (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:RAPID. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - The event is over comments that raised concern. The event will not be thought about again a year from now most likely. I find it hard to believe this event will have lasting notability enough for a separate article. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 22:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now, possibly merge into main article later on. Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It is leading the National news tonight, 9 Republican Senators and Mitt Romney have called him to drop out, and he has been told not to come to the convention. I think this goes to WP:N.Casprings (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry... what was your point? I see an excellent reason to include this in the subject's article, I see no reason whatsoever to have an article for this incident. Phyllis Diller also died yesterday, but I don't see any Death of Phyllis Diller article. Why? Because we don't make fork articles when the relevant information can be placed within the parent article. Trusilver 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • If anything that comparison demonstrates why we should have a separate article. One of these two subjects has tremendous number of sources and is having an international political impact, documented in sources in a variety of subjects. We have more than enough material for a full article. Which of these subjects is the one in question? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is a rather interesting article in Popular Science on the issue going into some detail on the subject. One could consider this as providing an example of the significant contextual coverage that addresses the WP:NOTNEWS objection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back per NOTNEWS. If the reaction to the remarks is still being talked about in the media months from now, then the article can be recreated. I notice that in the last 24-hours, the size of the article has not greatly increased, which appears to indicate that it is not a deep controversy. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS. This can be adequately covered in the parent article. aprock (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant amount of material. This was also the second most "googled" item on Sunday. Squad51 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Todd Akin#Rape and Pregnancy Controversy barring this sticking around for a long time. Being googled the most on one day isn't necessarily a measure of significance pbp 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed to something less ungainly. And Oakshade was wrong to move the page in the middle of an AfD pbp 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Dear Sirs, this article has substantial references, and isn't going anywhere.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  It's "not going away" because the comments are two days old and the media is drooling over it. In a week the media and everyone else will have likely moved on. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Sir, with all due respect, that is speculative. Indeed this story has legs.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Todd Akin - No evidence of sustained notability. Maybe unmerge in a month or so if we are still talking about it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Important enough for its own namespace. Moncrief (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It's been on the news all day long and will have plenty of reliable sources by Wedensday morning. I don't follow the harm of having this extra article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, per WP:NOTNEWS, and above editors. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Discussed all over the place; people will come to Wikipedia for a less immediate, more considered view of the rumpus. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, and per "can't we find anything in the world more relevant to an encyclopaedia than endless sub-sub-subarticles on US politicians". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The fact that Romney, Obama, McConnell, and Pelosi all commented on it shows that it's notable, at least for now. Revisit the issue after the election; may not be worth keeping at that point. William Jockusch (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• McConnell? Who's she? Which begs the question: if I fell over and got raped in town, rang a few newspapers, cried on the radio and asked four people with political ambitions to speak out about poor road surfaces and rising crime rates would that get a wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell is the minority leader in the U.S. Senate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge back into the article or Delete it if the article already covers everything important. There is no reason to have a separate article for this, nor should it be this long. This is getting way too close to BLP violation territory, not to mention totally unimportant and WP:NOTNEWS. Silverseren^C 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. This "controversy" was entirely manufactured by a politically opposed press. Public figures and celebrities have been uttering stupid things for time immemorial, and a few weeks later they are usually non-events. Members of the Democratic Party have said inappropriate things in public over the last two decades, but have typically gotten a pass from a sympathetic press. Mr. Akin's statement was stupid, but it's only worth a mention in Wikipedia if it results in him stepping down, thus ending his Congressional career. The article should go; the information may be merged later into the Todd Akin article, as is done with "controversies", real or imagined, in most other Wikipedia articles. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, then use the lede as the contents of a section in Akin's article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No basis for this page to exist, other than as a vehicle to escape UNDUE weight concerns and BLP attack page concerns at Akin's main page. In other words, it's a POV-fork. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now and consider a merge at a later time, when the issue is no longer in the news, it has been edited for conciseness, and we have a complete picture of how large and complex the article is relative to its parent. Dedicated articles provide a great focal point for a rapidly changing subtopic. It's much easier to watch, edit, and discuss in its current location, and merging is much easier and less disruptive after it's stable. Dcoetzee 06:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge into Akin article. Although the comment belies an impressive level of stupidity - even for a member of Congress - that isn't enough to merit its own article. Coverage within the Akin article is sufficient. --JaGa^talk 07:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to double down on the merge; I didn't know about the Pregnancy from rape article then. The content in this article is good but it should be split across the Todd Akin, Pregnancy from rape, United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012, and War on Women articles. We should place this content within proper context instead of isolating it within the scope of a single gaffe. --JaGa^talk 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - While this is quite news article-like, it does have significance. This significance may or may not be far-reaching, but there is no doubt in saying that stupidity on such a grand scale comes but once every few decades. Acts of stupidity do not deserve get their own articles, but people committing such acts are considered idiots, and idiots deserve content on their articles that deem them as such, which means this content is worth keeping, albeit in an abridged form, on Todd Akin's main article. --` (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

delete/merge per NOTNEWS, and what is relevant can be added to the already logn enough section on his page.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Most of the Background section should be moved into a separate article on rape myths. Consider merging or deleting the rest after the election, when we'll better know its significance. —AnotherOnymous (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 with some trimming (or possibly Rape_culture#United_States). Legitimate rape (currently a redirect to this article) should be redirected somewhere else, possibly Rape culture. Having this inflammatory content on a non-BLP page make BLP balance issues much easier to deal with. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, clearly notable event of national significance. —Nightstallion 11:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:N, as others have said above me. —stay (sic)! 11:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The reflexive deletionism here is annoying. This is one of the highest-profile developments of the Senate race so far, and especially given Akin's refusal to drop out it's likely to be a continued topic of discussion for weeks to come. Binarybits (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or merge -- clearly demonstrates notability, but perhaps would be better placed within the Akin article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• comment There's now at least one article in the mainstream news specifically discussing how this issue has become an international one. [29]. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/merge This has received a lot of coverage in the UK, ie more so than the average US election gaffe/spat, and will no doubt be the one main thing he is remembered for in future - but it is still basically an election-driven news event and one incident in one politician's career. No reason apparent currently for it to have a whole standalone article. If this is the standard WP works to, we could spin every politician's article out into 101 sub-pages, focused laser-like on every single utterance or passing controversy they've ever been involved in. The point of encyclopedic biography is to pull all those together into a coherent and balanced whole. As WP:NOTNEWS says - "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". N-HH talk/edits 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• KeepThe article has matured and is quite relevant.Regards, theTigerKing  13:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: No new reasons; they've all been rather hashed and re-hased above. I would support a merge in the future with Akin's article, but since the term 'Legitimate Rape' is now a legitimate search term (pardon the pun) for the time being, and since there appears to be much information and debate regarding the uterus' ability to abort, it stands to reasons it is a separate issue (for now).--Revanche (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as nothing more than an attack ad with no basis in Wikipedia notability. The notable parts can easily be covered in the primary article, while getting rid of most of the synthesis and bias.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What synthesis do you see in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Taking information published 40 years ago and using it as a way to refute the subject is synthesis. If you need "rebuttal" arguments, use actual sources that do so, do not use previous sources to refute. That's WP:SYNTH because the article is using two or more sources to come to a conclusion not presented in either. --JOJ ^Hutton 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • So the primary claimed example of synthesis is the citation and discussion of the Mecklenburg article? First, that's a paragraph that could be easily removed without changing the rest of the article at all. So that would be an argument for editing, not deletion. Second and more important, it isn't synthesis. There are other sources, cited in the article, taling about this in the specific context of Mecklenburg. For example, this is cited in the article. So there's no synth there. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I think that given this background - and the fact that this is far from a unique case - is a good argument for a Rape and pregnancy controversy article - which is much more duely weighted. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Agree -- the allegorical use of scientific fable to support political and ideological causes, and connections to the "war on women" are of greater encyclopaedic interest than the biographical or electoral aspects.
          • Strongly disagree with that idea. The only controversy is because he said something so misinformed and ignorant. There is no controversy about whether rape causes pregnancy, and creating an article with that title would be the same as creating the now-thankfully-deleted nonsense Homosexuality and pedophilia - pandering to a manufactured view which can only serve to confuse the reader, not inform. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
            • That's nonsense; your falling afoul of recent-ism bias. As is quite nicely highlighted by this article; people have been making controversial statements about pregnancy through rape for some time. Right back to historical times. I was aware of it prior to this incident. It certainly doesn't lend weight to the theory - but it exists! In fact I am slight offended by your implication that I believe this theory has merit by virtue of me suggesting an article about it... --Errant ^(chat!) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
              • • I disagree that my rationale has anything to do with recent events, and I deeply apologize if my words in any way seemed to you to touch on your beliefs in any way. That was not my meaning at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Sure, we could have that article. But having such an article is to some extent an issue that's independent of this controversy. And of course none of this addresses the apparently weak SYNTH claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now, Merge later -- Although I agree with many that the controversy does not merit its own article, the fact remains--it does exists. Some trimming up should be done once this controversy has subsided, and it should be merged with the page on Todd Akin, with a side note in the US Senate Elections Missouri, 2012 page. Donatrip (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, but discuss this again in a few months and possibly merge it with some other article. Gary (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now, Merge later -- Google News keeps serving up links to the page -- it provides a comprehensive review for someone interested in the topic. If, after the election, it is deemed to have had a major effect on the elections, it should be kept, otherwise merged into the Todd Akin article. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is not just a transient news story. Many years from now people will want to be able to read the article.

Bob (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now, wait til the dust settles. It may eventually be merged back into his article, or the election article, but currently unfortunately poor Mr. Akin's most notable accomplishment is this, and covering it correctly might strain the balance of his article. Nothing good he has ever done is nearly so noteworthy; ergo it is bigger than he is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

*Can we have a count now and arrive at a consensus?

• • Merge -
  • Keep -
  • Delete -

Regards, theTigerKing  16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• • This AfD has been up for less than two days. AfDs generally run much longer. It is especially important to do so on issues that are controversial and where the consensus is not clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• • There should not be any such tally boxes, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to an AfD discussion. This is not a vote. Edison (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete Notnews, While this has recieved significant coverage, every political gaffe by every politician during an election cycle is covered. This will drop out of the news cycle and be forgotten as soon as this election is over (sooner if he quits or something). It is certainly important to his own BIO and should be included, and possibly can get a BRIEF mention in the overall election articles (especially if this does have a more lasting impact), but it is not deserving of its own article at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This entry helps our readers, which should be the only criteria. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Major news media worldwide continue to provide significant coverage, and judge this to be an important aspect of the 2012 US Senate races, as do leaders of the Republican party. It should be covered in summary style in the articles about Akin and his 2012 Senate run, but a breakout article is justified by the complexity of the matter. It goes beyond a simple gaffe or "Macaca (term)" incident which scuttled someone's earlier Senate run. The article about the "macaca" incident was kept in an AFD nearly unanimously, so citing it goes beyond "other stuff exists." Consideration should be given to creating a related new article about Rape, pregnancy and abortion controversy in the Republican campaigns in 2012, since Dr John C. Willke, the apparent source of the claim, was a prominent surrogate speaker for Romney in his previous campaign, and has endorsed Akin's remarks and the Republican platform reportedly passed this week seeks a prohibition of abortion in the case of rape or incest. Edison (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge In 10 years time noone is likely to care about Todd Akins comments; this event has no inherent notability. This isn't wikinews. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge per [WP:NOTNEWS] & WP:POVFORK, No need for an article. This can be covered sufficiently in Akin's article. Truthsort (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. The issue continues to develop and has had major consequences for the Republican Party, not just on a state level, but also on a national level. It's not your usual run-of-the-mill gaffe. There has been international media coverage and the story continues to develop. It can be merged at a later date if necessary, but keep for now per WP:RAPID. Aurora30 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete everything of any encyclopedic value is covered in the lead and that (and more) has already been easily incorporated into the main TA article. The rest of the page is just hot air blowing around. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge into United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 because the controversy only exists in the context of the election. If there were no elections, there would have been far less coverage of it. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is true that without a Missouri election there would have been much less coverage, but that's not a good argument to merge it there. First, just because some other subject was a major contributor to why something is notable doesn't mean that it has to be merged into that article. Lee Harvey Oswald is only notable as a consequence of who he shot, but that doesn't mean we should merge his article into an article about Kennedy or the assassination. What matters most is how much we have in the way of sources and coverage to write an article. Second, a major aspect of this situation is concern that it will impact the general perception in this election cycle as a whole and thus have a wider impact than just the Missouri election itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now in light of WP:RAPID. This article and event are a moving target if I've ever seen one. AgnosticAphid talk 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete In the long run, everything notable can be covered in the article about Akin or the 2012 elections. However, I do understand and would accept postponing deletion until the media flea circus dies down. I vehemently disagree with some points above, 10 years from now this will be as forgotten as Howard Dean's at one time famous gaffe in the 2004 election that cost him his frontrunner status. Dave (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • • Point of interest, while we don't have an article on the Dean Scream, that's not the result of a consensus discussion and I rather think the continued coverage (incl. scholarly) could support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, clearly a Dean Scream article could be created. It gets referenced fairly frequently years after the fact, including in journal articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• • That something will only be remembered strongly by some people is not an argument for deletion. Who remembers for example the prime ministers of Britain in the 19th century aside from the much more notable ones like Spencer Perceval? To use a slightly different example, almost no one aside from a professional mathematician has even heard of the Jordan-Schur theorem and even then, many mathematicians have not. But that's not an argument for deletion. The fact that something is a specialized topic or won't be remembered by many in a few years is not a good argument for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Edit and merge - there is a lot of good material here, though not notable enough for its own article. Much of it is worth keeping, albeit in a more concise form. Once there's a bit of stability and distance I think that the core of this article should be merged back into Todd Akin. Euchrid (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a huge news story, to the point where it is beginning to overshadow other issues in the Senate race, and threatens to bleed over into the presidential race via Paul Ryan's opinions on the same issues. This controversy has ramifications well beyond Akin's own career and opinions, into becoming a major issue in the larger U.S. culture wars. (Update: It's all over the global media, too, well beyond the Anglosphere: [30] (fr), [31] (es), [32] (de), [33] (tr)) -- The Anome (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the Rubicon has been crossed - this is a major issue in campaigns at every level - Presidential, Senate, and House. It has affected King's re-election in Iowa. It has become such a huge scandal, that to delete the article would be to erase history in the making. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or merge back -- for now, at least. There's a reason we are an encyclopedia, and not a news source in our own. There's no harm in evaluating this a little down the line, we rarely need articles here and now as they happen with scandals like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - Admins should note that a significant proportion of the "Keep" comments come from inexperienced users who seemingly have no knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies concerning notability or WP:NOTNEWS. As for those saying "keep and wait a few months", the way we've been doing things is always no article unless notability is proven, not "make an article and see if it would be retroactively justified." (Finally, for those citing WP:RAPID, please read it carefully and note that this is 1. a (disputed) guideline, not a policy, and 2. directed towards nominators of AfDs to avoid drawn out deletion disputes, and has no relevance for whether an article should actually be deleted.) Rank-one map (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of engaging in what sort of amounts to a tu quoque response, I note that your account was made in March of this year. Second, the idea that it sometimes makes sense to wait until the dust settles is an argument that has been taken seriously in many AfD discussions for some time and is a reasonable argument whether or not the people can point to a specific written policy supporting it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how this argument has been phrased and received in recent AfD discussions. I do know however it is highly inconsistent with standard Wikipedia policies. Take a look for example of WP:N#TEMP. It is here implied that articles deemed non-notable at the time will be deleted, and you can re-assess that decision later. Keeping an article and hoping that it becomes notable is completely contrary to this principle.

As for the new account comment - As you might note, some of my edits are made on sensitive professional topics, hence I created a new account and abandoned my old one to avoid possibly tracing back to my identity (this is allowed under #2 of WP:Multiple Accounts). Rank-one map (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The central argument being made isn't that the subject is not notable but should be kept temporarily (I see only a single user making that argument from a quick glance through). I agree that such an argument would be counter to policy and good sense. The argument is that for an ongoing subject it often makes sense to wait and let an article develop before fully deciding on whether it is notable. Of course this is only marginally relevant for some individuals here, such as myself, who think that this is notable full stop. As for your account's recent nature, I wasn't aware that Dynkin diagrams were a sensitive topic. Joking aside, are economics really sensitive? But even aside from that, there's really no reason to think differently about other people. Essentially once people have accounts that have been around and contributed on other subjects, the difference between a 2 months, six months or a year shouldn't be that important. If there was a heavy influx of completely new accounts there might be a valid point here, but I'm not seeing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My comment on inexperience was nonsensical. However I insist that a large number of comments here are contradictory to basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NOTNEWS. That does not of course diminish the strength of other arguments made in favor of keeping. Rank-one map (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Outside Perspective - It appears that this has been made a focus of attack for !vote-stacking and WP:CANVASSING by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Just thought that any admin looking this over ought to be aware of that. Organized POV pushing is not fair or proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cite your evidence, my IP friend. (Other users should note that this IP's only other contribution on Wikipedia is trolling on another political topic and getting [banned.) Rank-one map (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I too would like to see evidence. Note also that people who care about politics are likely to be interested in this sort of thing. That doesn't mean they are votestacking when many people show up. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I will be happy to provide it once I can figure out how to get the history of an embedded object. At the time of my writing it was the top alert of the "Alerts" section at [34]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The fact that we have a minority of deletion comments, most of which are based purely on policy grounds - and a majority of keep/merge comments, a significant proportion of which contain rather partisan comments on politics (an embarrassment to the Republican party, etc.) - and yet somebody is here accusing dissenters of being conservative votestackers and POV-pushers - is a good sign of just how ludicrously ideological Wikipedia has become. (And in case I get condemned by another ideological hack, I am a Democrat and I fully despise Todd Akin's comments. But I don't come on Wikipedia to push my views.) Rank-one map (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't use the comments by an an anon as good evidence that Wikipedia ideology is in focus here. And it may help to keep in mind that people can legitimately disagree over how to interpret policy on Wikipedia just as they can legitimately disagree about politics. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I see the political comments in the keep/merge opinions as not pushing partisan ideology so much as arguing for notability. —AnotherOnymous (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, Wikiprojects have a standard way they alert people of interest to related subjects that are going on. That's not evidence of canvassing by most notions of the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Do not keep. I don't care what happens to this, but let's not have yet another article on some issue like this. We're not the news. People can cite RAPID all they want, but I don't see why this should be separate from the guy's article. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - Just merge it with the Todd Akin article and add to it there. Should be simple enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep with maybe eventual Merge back. The "one word" or "sentence" "misspeak" does seem clearly to link somehow to the more substantial platform policy initiative by the Republican Party and certainly has found wide resonance on the two party, and other (independents, international), sides of the campaign. As part of the large and long-running abortion debate, also, it seems significant. Deletion would seem a major loss to Wikipedia. And having it for now separate from but linked, of course, to the principal's article has come to seem right to me, also. Sorry, I'm no good at citing Wiki policy to support my opinions here. I have made one contribution to the article, for what that's worth. Swliv (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Edit, wait, and merge - Everything needs to be condensed and eventually put on his page. I think the article would benefit from a bit of cooldown time before writing such a lengthy section on the political impact; it could do anything from drastically affect the presidential election to fall off the radar in weeks time. While I'm personally repulsed by his statement, this only happened a couple of days ago and the article would be better covered if we gave it some distance for a time. Drivec (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - This is being talked about overseas, see this CNN article, especially its potential impact on the U.S. presidential race. Akin's making this bigger than Akin-Kiwipat (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - stupid comments make international news all the time, that alone doesn't warrant an article. Let's see what people think in, say, 3 months. By then the political backlash will have worn off and we can look at this more neutrally. Delete rationale comes from nom: "Finally; per WP:EVENT we lack a diversity of sources; it is basically coverage of what he said, then various supporters or detractors commenting on it." Mythpage88 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• KeepThis thing is an amazing entry.Keith Henson (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. This story has received and continues to receive massive coverage from mainstream news-media, both in the U.S. and internationally, and it is not going to away anywhere any time soon. The story has had a significant effect on the dynamics of the U.S. presidential elections, not to mention the U.S. Senate elections in Missouri. There is more than enough material here for a separate article and that amount is only going to increase given that the story is still developing. People who are complaining that the story is "overhyped" by media are basically using the WP:DONTLIKEIT argument. In determining notability, we are supposed to follow coverage by mainstream reliable sources, and not substitute our judgement regarding what they decide to cover. Nsk92 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course there are a lot of sources on this debate, but we still have to exercise some discretion and judgment about how to include and incorporate such sourced material and whether a particular topic needs its own standalone page; or whether it is simply something that needs noting in the entries about Akin and/or the election in question. No we can't discount media interest in a story, but equally we don't have to slavishly follow it either and simply assume that everything that has a burst of media coverage, especially as part of an electoral cycle, however extensive, needs its own entry in an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news round-up service. N-HH talk/edits 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the article can always be merged back into another article later. For the moment, it's a global media phenomenon that has political ramifications that go far beyond Akin himself, which has now run for four days without showing any sign of abating, and curently dominates all discourse on Americian politics. To keep it in the Akin article would be to pretend that none of this is happening. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary" - if you are saying that it might not meet notability requirements in a few months, you are really saying that it does not meet them now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The War of 1812 was very notable in 1832 compared to how notable it is currently. Just a thought. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me; Happy War of 1812 Bicentennial, everyone! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per my long-standing view that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, merge later per Khazar2 and esp. WP:RAPID. --Seduisant (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A well sourced article with a person known for more rhan one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews, summarizing what is appropriate in Akin's article and the election articles, and then delete (unlikely search term so no need for redirect). Seriously, Wikinews has mentioned only twice in this entire discussion; this type of news story is exactly what Wikinews is suited for and what Wikipedia itself is not (per WP:NOT#NEWS). The statement will have political ramifications on his career and other elections, for certain, but the level of detail that this article goes into coverage is not suitable for a tertiary work. But transwiki to Wikinews, link to the article there, and now you actually are using the Foundation projects correctly. Heck, seeing that Pregnancy from rape is linked but also presently undergoing an AFD, some of this content here can go to that article (as part of notable debates about pregnancy from rape, but should have appropriate NPOV balances) as to make that article better, since that article is not an event but actually a rather important social subject. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very notable event, and a very well-sourced sourced article. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The controversy has clearly become large enough to warrant its own page. Tiller54 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge I really, really, really wish more people would closely read WP:10YT, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This is yet another of those articles that we probably shouldn't create until a few months after the event. Instead, I recommend (in this and in all future such cases) initially mentioning it in a relevant article, before spinning it off into its own article should it meet the criteria to do so. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is what sets articles like this up to turn out exactly like the 324,682 "Occupy Whogivesacrapville" articles that were soooooo important to make this time last year. Once the immediate fervor dies down, what you essentially have is an article that is forever after doomed to get three or four hits a day because it's unnecessary compared to the parent article. This is the very essence of WP:10YT. Is an article which is nothing more than an obvious attempt to expand on a political gaffe going to be notable and relevant? Of course not. Trusilver 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a headline news aggregator and because this news will not matter in a few months it should not have its own page. Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a serious issue which has a large impact on the 2012 elections and national politics; it warrants its own page. Grammarxxx (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we think it has had a significant impact; we don't know if this issue will fade away next week, or if it will linger for months, or if everyone will forget about it on Monday, etc, etc. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and recentism is a dangerous trend in this AFD. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a gaffe story. Akin's statement is a common anti-abortion talking point. The significance of the comment is not that it may cost Akin the Senate race or even that it may have broader implications for the 2012 presidential election. It's significant (and is receiving international coverage) because Akin, knowingly or otherwise, has deployed pseudoscience in an effort to support restricting women's reproductive rights. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think what you do want to keep is "Pregnancy from rape" then (also up for deletion), where this general talking point can be discussed, rather then linking it to this one person. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Pregnancy from rape is the far better approach to treat this topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or an online news source. Secondly, this is clearly undue weight. This is a minor controversy over a gaffe made by a candidate. If a similar story was in India, Pakistan, Brazil, China, Indonesia or even the United Kingdom, their is no way anyone would justify a wikipedia article. Read WP:WORLDVIEW. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge into Todd Akin — Yes, this scandal has received significant coverage, but has it developed into something with lasting significance? That has yet to be established; see WP:EFFECT. As such, this article exists for the purpose of heightening the implications of his comments (which were extraordinarily misguided even by the most vanilla interpretation of them, although I do think he misspoke), thus giving undue weight against an individual. I do not consider that to be consistent with WP:BLP, which in principle protects even the most despicable of people from defamation or negative bias (not necessarily suggesting that Akin himself is despicable, but rather to illustrate my point). Make no mistake about it, I was disgusted by what he said, but until and unless this controversy snowballs into something with longterm ramifications, I see no reason why it needs anything beyond a subsection at Akin's main article, where I think it could be given sufficient coverage. Kurtis (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Significant international coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have renamed the article to "Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy" because I believe the original title was not sufficiently clear on the subject of the article. Do not think the word "controversy" is necessary in the title because the controversy is the only thing that would make the comments notable and this is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  Not a correct move for two reasons. 1. It's far more than just "comments" and this has errupted into a nationwide controversy with contetious debate and discussion about the implications of this controversy. 2. The affectation of a year, with very few exceptions, is used when there are two or multiple topics of the same name. The title you added iplies theres a "Todd Akins 2011 comments on rape-induced pregnancy" article somewhere. Of course, there isnt.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Those reasons are not valid. Surely he has commented before on the matter of rape-induced pregnancies, even if there isn't an article about it, the year focuses it on these prominent comments. As to it being about more than his "comments", that is not wrong, but it is not a valid objection to the rename. The controversy and its implications all center around the comments. Naming the article after what precipitated the controversy is no different from discussing the impact of other comments or events.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete/merge back to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. This is why we have articles on individual Senate races -- to present the relevant info. If this does have impact on other races, that can easily be explained in reference to the Missouri article. I don't understand what purpose a separate article serves, except to dodge (rather than addressing) the issue of WP:WEIGHT. -Pete (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, Part 1: Thought it might be interesting to check out how big this story is in various news organizations right now. (Disclaimer: I'm not counting "Most popular in the last week" boxes, because the story broke earlier this week...)

• BBC News: Not mentioned on section page, referenced in a throwaway line in 1 article, Akin not mentioned by name.
• NY Times Mentioned further down page in two blog articles, only directly reported on in one. Neither article made the print edition.
• Washington Post Headlining section page, but mostly references to how Democrats are exploiting the gaffe. Precedent has established that attack ads are notable enough for an encyclopaedic article only in a few, very rare cases. (Think "Swift Boat")
• CNN Politics Two small mentions on section page.
• Google News for "Todd Akin" Note how many of those entries have (Blog) written after them)

But most damning, perhaps, is this Insights for Search that I just ran. Note how sharp of a spike that coverage is. Also take into account that, through our collective systemic bias, we're probably giving this article more weight than its worth. Looking at the search volume by country, note that everyone -- aside from the US, Canada, and the UK -- just doesn't really care. To avoid an edit conflict, (I suspect I've already failed), I'll add some other insight searches momentarily. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's take just the first one of your cites I picked (genuinely) at random, the NYT page you linked: on that page, at the moment, I have the following links to stories: "A Candidate’s Stumble on a Distressing Crime", "The Caucus: Even if Akin Wanted to Quit Race, It Would Be Difficult", "Egan: Crackpot Caucus", "Op-Ed: The Medieval Roots of Akin’s Theories". That's four stories on the topic, all linked from the same index page. Hardly a lack of interest. -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at those, sure. 1)Article, RS, focuses not on Akin but on the history of "Pregnancy and Rape"; an argument for keeping that article, not this one. 2)Blog, focuses on the logistics of dropping out of the race; in essence, an article about his political career, not his comments. Would more appropriately be cited in the main Todd Akin article. 3)Blog (opinion piece, ergo less of an RS), using Akin's remarks as a premise to "discuss" the Republican party's views on Science, and 4)Op-Ed, discussing topic of pregnancy and rape -- argues for keeping that article. In summary, Akin's comments and that scandal merited passing mentions at best in all four of those articles. Just because the name shows up, doesn't mean the story is about Todd Akin's comments. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, Part 2: As promised, some more comparative Google Insights searches are below:

• Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of English speakers
• Same as above, but with Canada and Australia substituted for India and the Philippines
• Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of internet users
• Comparison of UN P5
• Comparison of top 5 global economies
• Comparison of top 5 Eurozone economies, just for fun

Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know google trends was how wiki. The event had "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)". Therefore it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events). Simple as that. Casprings (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

.:::*Bonus Comment: [35] Google Trends result for "Todd Akin". Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That Google Trends analysis certainly shows a sharply rising, then falling, peak for Google search volume, which iswhat you presumably want us to draw a conclusion from. But I find it much more significant that the "News reference volume" line below is rising, and continuing to rise. These are the very things Wikipedia should care about for judging the importance of the topic of an articles: rising interest on the part of reliable sources, not fickle Internet buzz. -- 80.168.172.12(talk) 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that includes blogs, too. Hardly reliable sources. Even if it doesn't, this is the US news media we're talking about, and this is silly season. Of course they're still talking about it; it's a slow news week, and the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep this story going. It's a smart political tactic, but not a good model for an encyclopedia. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And base your conclusions on WP:GHITS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. I'm not searching for the number of Google Hits, those searches show how many people are searching the term. In other words, it's a relative index of search volume, and a highly useful tool to show public interest; just like Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books. So, don't base your conclusions on WP:GHITS, base them on Wikipedia:Search engine test#Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So? All news stories peak rapidly, then decline in hits, even as public interest grows and broadens. In fact, the decline from the peak of hits, even as the number of stories increases, is the very essence of something ceasing to be news, and becoming part of the permanent record. Look at this, for example: [36]. Does that mean the Norwegian shootings are a non-issue, too? -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that's comparing Apples to Oranges. Specifically, Mass-murdering apples to Election-year-political-gaffe oranges. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this goes well beyond a "gaffe". Women don't like rape. And they vote. -- 80.168.172.12 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

...do I really need to respond to that? "X don't like Y. And they vote." is the very definition of what makes a political gaffe. No one (well, no good person) "likes" rape, so I don't see why you need to talk down to us like that. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If subject of this article is still getting that type of coverage a year from now, THEN it will most certainly have established its notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - Per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE issues previously cited. It certainly happened, and can be documented by reliable sources, but it belongs more as a subsection in his, or his campaign's, article. And, by chance this is kept, it definitely needs a name change. Left as is, it sounds like an article about Todd Akin raping someone. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/merge into the Akin's article, per NOTNEWS and UNDUE. Lots of things happen in the world and are covered by newspapers, but that doesn't mean that every single one should have a separate entry in an encyclopedia. The issue in question would be sufficiently covered by paragraph in the main article. I really think that creating all these forks for controversial incidents (thinking back to the recent Chick-fil-A incident) should be discouraged, otherwise we just have the same deletion discussions over and over again. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete...Akin makes one idiotic comment and that somehow warrants an article? What about the constant moronic comments made by Joe Biden...how about an article about each one of those...that might add another 10,000 articles to the pedia.--MONGO 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge I agree, there is no reason to take each comment in an election season that seriously. The matter is already dying away at this time. If the comment really has an impact in retrospect on the election an article may be written. However, it would be appropriate to merge this into Akin's Wiki page, accounting for the fact that his political career appears to have fallen apart due to the comments. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unrelated comment I just noticed, while the incident is mentioned in the main Michael Dukakis article, we don't have an independent article for one of the most famous political gaffes ever. (Propose one be created at Michael Dukakis Tank Photograph.) Anyone want to help start one? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

* That should be an article. Clear impact on the election and long term cultural impact. Casprings (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Clear impact on the national Republican Party (they're weighing in and trying to get Akin out of the race) and on the national race for control of the Senate. Polls show it is not simply "dying away", and it would be helpful to keep this separate from Akin's main article. Merge back as a second choice. The Moose is loose! 10:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unrelated comment I think the consensus is delete. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge back into Todd Akin. Todd Akin is not the main article to this subtopic. Except for what he said about legitimate rape, everything else in the article is contributed by others in reliable sources, not by Todd Akin, and then those contributions largely fall on where the contributor resides on the political spectrum. The "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" subarticle is not an account of Todd Akin's life but instead is an account of other's lives and actions they took. Admin Deryck C.'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that (Obama's out of content words) provides good discussion points for the present AfD:
  

  "Most of the arguments for deletion denounce [the Obama "You didn't build that"] article as a POV fork without addressing the issue that the topic is actually a subtopic fork."[37]

  Both Legitimate rape and You didn't build that are the same subtopic and to determine whether each qualifies as a Wikipedia:Summary style article, it would help to identify the main article. I don't know enough about the political spin area to figure out which Wikipedia article is the main article (someone who knows about this stuff please suggest), but it probably is one of Character assassination, Dirty tricks, Discrediting tactic, False accusations, Negative campaigning, Psychological manipulation, Red-baiting, Shame campaign, Smear campaign, Swift boating, Whispering campaign, or Yellow journalism. With the main article identified, we then can have a good discussion as to whether the legitimate rape subtopic is a major subtopic of the main article per the requirements of Wikipedia:Summary style. In other words, in the context of Wikipedia's article on negative political campaign techniques, is the legitimate rape topic so independently notable from that main topic that it is a major subtopic fork of that main topic and deserves fuller treatment in a separate article of its own? Just about every country in the world does these slip of the tongue negative spin campaign and this one does not yet stand out from those that have been covered in the news in the past 100 years. The legitimate rape topic/information may qualify to be part of a List of slip-of-the-tongue negative spin campaigns, but is not so independently notable that it deserves a stand alone article. The article should be delete/moved back into Todd Akin so that the content is limited to biographical information about his life, not the lives of others and what they choose to say. Article name - The article name "Todd Akin rape" is offensive and violates BLP. He didn't rape any one, he didn't get anyone pregnant through rape, so seeing "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy" is wholly offensive. If I got to this article sooner in the AfD, I would have moved it to Legitimate rape to address the immediate BLP issue. The "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy" name of the article is really offensive and should not even be a redirect. If another agrees with me, the we should move the above nominated article now, even before this AfD ends. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article title isn't controversial or offensive. He made comments about rape and pregnancy. Any cursory reading with minimal reading comprehension can see that's what it is. BLP doesn't require us to presume that readers are absolute idiots. And even if one thinks there's a BLP problem with the title it is easy to change that to something like "Todd Akin comments about rape and pregnancy controversy" so this isn't a relevant argument for the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Let's not balloon the main article for this major 'gaff', but this side article is missing much of the defending responses and a great many additional stories to come from this one. If foreign press care enough about this to run stories as noted with Japan and Britain, than I believe THIS controversy is notable. The reason I believe it needs its own page, it for objectivity to Todd Akin; because this event will destroy the balance of the main article so that this controversy dominates the page. All the major counters are differences of ROUTINE, but nothing about this is routine, its blown up and has been sustained for a week. Might I suggest relevance to Trayvon Martin versus Heaven Sutton, the difference being a few weeks of sustained media versus a flurry? Too bad Todd Akin's got 500 times the google hits, even the controversy has far more attention than other major stories. Can't turn on the radio without hearing it, day after day, or blow by blow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Somewhat reluctantly, since I don't think Wikipedia is selective enough regarding this type of article. But, until that can be fixed, the more important goal of neutrality obliges us to make the problem worse. I'd never heard of "You didn't build that" prior to this discussion, for example. Our standard may be low, but we must apply it evenly. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Pregnancy from rape if that article is kept in ongoing RfD, otherwise keep this article. Either way, this article should also be summarized in the articles on the candidate and on his current election, if that is not the case already. Neutron (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

• KeeP Really large story and seems to be getting even bigger. Belvbelv (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment; thanks everyone for their !votes. I'd say that no one arguing keep has demonstrated enduring significance in a diverse range of sources that warrant this fork as required by WP:EVENT. The article as it stands is mostly stuffed with "reaction" (always a warning sign) and lengthy quotes. So clearly is in need of merging. I am worried that a lot of people !vioting keep (Sue Gardner is a particularly worrying example!) are working of their own opinions and POV that this should exist... I am pleased to see an article about the whole topic exists - which includes a number of examples of a similar situation to this. I think we have a very strong argument for merging to there. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I haven't really voted, but per WP:INDEPTH "coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines" and that is definitely satisfied. I do not think redirecting to "pregnancy from rape" is appropriate given that this is as much an issue of the Missouri Senate election as it is an issue of his comments on rape-induced pregnancy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• My concern is that as a discrete event, this article's subject seems be notable across the scope of too many other articles to be merged in a satisfying way. Anyone who is searching for information on this event post merge would have to assemble the information by running around the patchwork of information left by carving up this article. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not clear what you mean by "diverse sources", Errant. You keep bringing up that phrase, but the section on diversity of sources in WP:EVENT simply says "Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source" and "Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." We're obviously past the point where this is a single Associated Press article appearing in multiple papers; indeed, we're several thousand times past that point. Could you elaborate on your definition of "diverse" here, and where you're drawing it from in WP:EVENT? That might make your question easier to answer. Khazar2 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RAPID. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep (changed !vote, see above). The article now has the content, the sources, etc to convince me it's notable. suggest better links to rape culture. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Stayed away from making a vote for a while, but I think at this point the sources clearly point to this as more than your usual gaffe.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The number of "gaffes" is snowballing and it doesn't make sense to keep material about multiple congressional/senatorial/presidential races in various regions in a single biographical article. (Tom Smith (Pennsylvania) is the latest.) The scope of the issue, in order to avoid overwhelming Akin's biography, necessitates this content fork. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Khazar2 makes a convincing case. Google news proves he had few mentions of him in the news media for all those years in office, and then suddenly he has quite a large number because of this. It did result in the media talking about the rape making pregnancy impossible myth. Dream Focus 03:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unrelated Comment: I wanted to harness the huge number of views that this AFD is getting to point out that the current article on Political gaffe is frankly terrible. Can we please work to improve this turkey? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It seems like this isn't going away. If in six months time, it fades back away into obscurity, re-nominate. I don't see the urgency in deleting things like this. (Also, with my English Wikinews admin hat on, to those who say "transwiki to Wikinews", please actually read up on how Wikinews works before basically using us as your dumping ground.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2012 (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.