Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment 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 merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin, or such other articles as may be created in the future. Users, by consensus, express that it is insufficient on its own to warrant an article and would be more appropriately covered in the context of Todd Akin and United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy

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

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

Todd Akin said something stupid in August 2012. It did cost him support, and without this comment, it's possible that he would have won the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. However, this comment doesn't deserve its own article, as the policy WP:NOTNEWS would indicate. Yes, the comment had its impact, but this is a WP:POV fork. It can be covered adequately at the Senate election article I linked above, and at other appropriate articles, such as War on Women.

A past AfD on this article closed as no consensus, but I believe that people couldn't parse out the WP:RECENTISM at the time, especially as the election was ongoing. For a similar incident that spawned an article and was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy. Note that Mourdock was also likely to win his election, and that his comment is likely the reason he lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This piece was no doubt created and blown up bigger than a Bullwinkle balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade due to the 2012 election campaign. In the wake of the Congressman's electoral defeat this remains a historically notable topic, it would seem, but perhaps on the short list for a paring down of size and intensity. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is a comment that cost him a Senate seat (by your opening statement). That is historically important enough for an article. Your opening statement is a case for restoring the Richard Mourdock article not deleting this one. Note, the Wikipedia:Deletion review for the Mourdock article is ongoing here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 10:03, November 8, 2012‎

Outcome of the Mourdock article was delete and merge to Campaign Article. Casprings demanded an immediate Deletion review, which was unanimously closed with an endorsement of the Deletion. The place for a Campaign controversy is the campaign article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Missouri Senate election has a section for controversies or debates that influence the outcome of the Missouri Senate election; that is what it is for. If you believe that the Akin remarks were a major factor, that is an argument for the expansion of that section within that article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous209.6 doesn't get to define that the article is "for controversies or debates that influence the outcome of the Missouri Senate election. This had wider consequences then that. While I disagree with the Mourdock discussion, it should have little bearing here. Akin's comments clearly had much more WP:N then Mourdocks.Casprings (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, Casprings posted a link to the Mourdock, claiming relevance. The Mourdock discussion was definitively closed, and properly, and now it has "little bearing". Just a note on consistency.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note that Casprings, who wrote that 'oppose', is the article creator. Also note that the ongoing deletion review is endorsing the AfD result of delete. Also, we don't know it cost him his seat. McCaskill might've defeated him even if he hadn't opened his mouth about "legitimate rape". Further, it's "historically important enough" to mention at the Senate election article, but not enough for its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being the article creator doesn't discredit Casprings's opinion (he didn't explicitly vote keep, he's just opposing your nomination). The topic, and similar ones, received an immense amount of coverage, not as an element of the campaign but as an example of a stance on a controversial aspect of society. It also can be construed (and has been in the media) as the factor in his victory; its impact of drawing away establishment support is also noteworthy as an example and as a separate thing. dci | TALK 18:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Campaign point that is probably already faithfully characterized in the section on his page. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Akin is probably going to recede into obscurity; he isn't that good a candidate, which is why McCaskill campaigned for him so actively in the primary. The views allegedly expressed are at best fringe, and aren't really a campaign issue that will resonate or be picked up by anyone else. If it was important to the Senate campaign, it needs to be merged with the Senate campaign article; "in the news" arguments argue for inclusion in THAT article, not a separate spinout, something discouraged by WP. Now that he is out of office, it is unlikely that Akin will have people banging down his door. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly the views did resonate, because a number of other candidates also talked about rape and lost their races because of it. Wikipedia is about what can be verifiably confirmed by reliable sources, not what we personally wish were the case, and like it or not, this was an important part of the election. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, no. Not a single candidate took up the "Rape" or "misunderstanding of Biology" banner and ran with it, since it worked so well for Akin. Not a one. On the other hand, the "number" of candidates is ONE. Let me repeat, ONE other candidate was ASKED about his views on rape exceptions for abortion, and had his "pro-life" response turned into a "pro-rape" comment by his opponent (misquoting the candidate). Not a trend to begin with, and therefore not an ongoing trend.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It sounds like you just are dissatisfied with the fact that these comments have an enduring impact; there's plenty of reliable sources that link Akin's comments with the Republicans' trouble with women voters and their senate and presidential losses. For instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/womens-issues-were-a-problem-for-gop.html?ref=politics ("Republicans, hoping to gain seats in the Senate, knew that their limited appeal among minorities would be a problem, as would party infighting. But they did not expect to be derailed by the definition of rape.") You may disagree, but that's not a reason to delete the article because we aren't reliable sources. AgnosticAphid talk 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; I am not saying it did not have an influence on the Senate campaign, it should be included there; that is a story of the campaign. Not saying it was not opportunistically folded into a larger Democrat 2012, defined by the political meme "War on women", and should be mentioned in that article on that campaign strategy. I am saying that, like Howard Dean's "Dean Scream" which was a pivotal moment, it did not have any integral or more widely applicable importance in and of itself, and therefore should not have a separate spinout. The story is that of the specific campaign and of the general campaign strategy. (The NYT article is really about the WoW strategy)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable enough to be discussed in both the 2012 senate campaign article and the War on Women article, then why isn't it appropriate to summarize it in those places and have a longer article here, per WP:SUMMARY? I mean, I guess there is WP:SPINOFF, but that says:

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. AgnosticAphid talk 19:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style articles are those that treat HUGE subjects, and are in some way just replacements with narrative for a Table of Contents; instead of having a singular article on a huge subject go on for pages and pages, you have a short article (a Summary style) give short intros to ALL relevant aspects of the huge subject and then ALL aspects have major articles. None of the Articles concerning Akin or Democrat strategy are Summary style articles.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr Akin's article is already roughly one-fourth only about this article's subject. If we were to merge all of the information here into that article it would probably be closer to half. I think there is already too much discussion of this in Mr Akin's article -- he's been active in Missouri politics for over 20 years -- and that article actually is in summary style, it's just that the summary of this incident is way too long (in my opinion). Similarly, the War on Women article would be dominated by the information here if it were to be merged, even though there are lots of other elements to that topic as well. That's why the thing I referenced says that detailed examination of a single topic in a general article usually gives undue weight. AgnosticAphid talk 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the obvious The Missouri Senate campaign article has exactly ONE spinout, namely this one. Spinouts are generally DIScouraged, the EXCEPTION being articles that are unavoidably huge, such that a short article containing summaries and multiple spinouts for EVERY (or almost) section is justified. The Missouri Senate campaign article is short, and is not this kind of "Summary style" WP article. Please read the rule section you are lifting; it explicitly tells editors to work on expanding main articles FIRST, and only if necessary, resorting to spinouts, and only in extreme cases, adopting "Summary style".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to assume that it is a given that this is a spinoff of the Missouri Senate campaign article. The ramifications of his comments had national affect. These comments have been linked to comments by other republicans by multiple sources. As such, I think that a stand alone article on such comments during the 2012 election cycle is what is needed. Given the greater context, that is where the substance of this page belongs. Casprings (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both AA, who wants a spinout, and I, who does not, agree it is a spinout of the Senate campaign article (as do most editors by their arguments), mostly because it is. More to the point, arguments based on justification for spinouts based on "Summary style" exceptions have to address the issues with spinouts. Which this is.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from trying to characterize my thoughts. First of all, what about Todd Akin, which I mention above but which you don't? Second, if you'd read my contribution to the requested move discussion referenced at the top and on the article's talk page, you'd see that I actually agree with Casprings that this topic has consequences broader than just the Senate campaign. This is evidenced by the fact that it's mentioned in the War on Women article, in a prominent position. There are lots of other editors who have provided references to reliable sources that have discussed how this issue drew national attention to the presence of Republicans with extremely conservative abortion views. There are also articles about how that national attention had consequences. You really haven't explained exactly why you disagree, except to say, essentially, "They're wrong." I don't think that your views on the merits of reliable sources is a basis for deleting this article.AgnosticAphid talk 02:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge material to Todd Akin. Newsworthy article, but should probably be part of the biographical article for this politician. Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Corn cheese (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEWHAT? What information would you merge from this article that isn't already represented at Todd Akin? --BDD (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually a good point, but there is a good answer; now that the Article on the Senate campaign has a conclusion, I think there is much more room for post-mortems, and since there are election results, the influence of Akin's dumb campaign and gaffes can be expanded and not be WP:CRYSTAL anymore. Would support expansion there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this proposal and think we should keep the article. I don't think WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is on point. This article isn't really journalism or a news report or written as a primary source. It's not a who's who or a diary either. While perhaps the background and reaction portions of the article could be trimmed, this article is more of a secondary-source based analysis of the political implications of this particular event. I think that per WP:EFFECT this is an appropriate article because according to many reliable sources cited in the article it likely cost republicans this particular senate seat. Even leaving that to one side, there are a number of other sources that say that Mr Akin's comment is what cost republicans control of the entire senate. See, for instance, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/republicans-blow-historic-opportunity-to-regain-senate-control.php (stating that "Republican odds of taking back the Senate collapsed and never recovered" after Mr Akin's comments). While it is true that there is some overlap between this article and others like the War on Women, the discussion of this topic in War on Women is exceedingly cursory and having a detailed article here seems to fit in with the outline or summary form that Wikipedia articles are supposed to take. I feel that instances of politicians making comments that have large and demonstrable political impacts per secondary sources are appropriate article subjects. While this information could be merged into the Todd Akin article, I think that this incident is already given undue weight in that article (he's been a politician for a long time, after all) and is better here. AgnosticAphid talk 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  First, it was a factor in Akin's Senate race. All Senate races contributed to the balance of power, makes no sense to say THIS one was special because THIS race, as opposed to the ND race, "lost" something bigger. Second, TPM is not a WP:RS, so not an argument (and I would add that any time an attack blog is the first source someone uses, it reflects badly on the argument). Third, the place that is most appropriate for the material is in the Senate Campaign Article; and you make no mention. If you believe that this was a principal factor in the loss in Indiana, then WP:UNDUE argues that it should be weighted THERE accordingly. If you do NOT think it should be so weighted, then you don't believe the Akin comments are that important. One or the other.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your first statement. If there had been a particular event that decisively contributed to the North Dakota senate race, I think that event would be worthy of an article too, if it were widely covered by reliable sources like this has been. As for TPM as a reliable source, I'm not an expert on what is and isn't a reliable source and I don't know very much about TPM. I don't think it's super persuasive to say "it reflects badly" on what I said without really responding to it just because I referenced TPM. As for the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 article, I think that that article is actually a great example of a good use of summary style. (Other articles like Todd Akin devote too much space to this issue, in my opinion.) Having an article here is a good way to use summary style in all of the related articles without giving this topic undue weight in any of them. AgnosticAphid talk 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please READ the rule section you want to quote before you invoke it. United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 is not a "Summary style"" WP article, and the extraordinary exceptions referred to do not apply here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The comment was certainly notable, and gained significant coverage that lasted for many weeks; that said, perhaps a merge wouldn't be bad. Through I'd rather merge it to a List of Republican party comments about rape or such. Perhaps a subarticle for War on Women... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I wouldn't oppose an overhaul such that the article was about GOP rape statements in this election rather than focusing primarily on Akin. See WP:EFFECT - this event (/these events) had a verifiable and lasting effect on the general election. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since multiple editors have suggested creating one article to handle all the rape comments during this election, I created a merge discussion. It can be found here.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURAL NOTE

1. The alleged "Merge" discussions taking place elsewhere are not a renaming merge, but a "Delete and Merge", namely, stating that the standalone Todd Akin controversy cannot stand alone (ie should be Deleted), but that INSTEAD, there might be a case for a completely separate article with completely different scope.
2. The merge target does not exist, and although any editor could have created such an article, and it would have almost certainly be quickly tagged with a Speedy Delete or AfD, the criteria for such deletions would have been based on the completely separate content of THOSE articles. This has been up for almost a week, no takers.
3. THIS discussion is solely about an actual article, a standalone article on Todd Akin's controversial comments, and the only part of these separate discussions about a separate and different proposed article that are relevant to THIS discussion is the acknowledgement that a standalone article should not exist.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURAL NOTE ON THE PROCEDURAL NOTE

1. No it isn't, and the only one that is claiming that is you. The Todd Akin article does and can stand alone. I think this would be a means to improve it. However, it clearly is WP:N by it self.
2. Says you. I doubt a speedy delete or an AfD would be successful.
3. It was placed in this discussion because other editors suggest that it might be a good idea. Therefore it is relavent. Casprings (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had held the belief or intent for TWO articles both being WP:N, one a standalone article on Todd Akin biology comments/controversy AND the second, "Republicans in general support x, 2012 "(presumably rape), there would have been no "Merge" proposal; a second article would simply have been started (any editor can do it, none have). No "Merge" discussion, no opportunity to post this AfD selectively. Inherent in the proposal is the supposedly desired outcome that the standalone Akin comment Article will no longer exist. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Actually I think there is a strong argument for one article on all the comments and this page being an expanded page based on that article. That actually makes a lot of sense to me and may be how this evolves. Casprings (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any additional information not already present to the appropriate controversy section under Todd Akin and then Delete this article; it isn't a useful search term, and contributes to Akin's notability without being notable in and of itself.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape. If merged, integrate Richard Mourdock comments, Roger Rivard's "rape so easy" comments, and Linda McMahon's "emergency rape" comments. Clearly WP:N. Merge discussion here. Casprings (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into a new article about the role such comments about rape played in the 2012 U.S. election. This incident is worth noting in the Todd Akin article and the War on Women article, but in those articles it will probably only warrant a few paragraphs. (I agree with AgnosticAphid that the controversy is getting undue weight in the Akin article right now.) It should be fully documented elsewhere in Wikipedia, because it was a significant controversy: it received international media attention, it affected the outcome of the election, particularly among female voters, it will have lasting effects on the abortion debate, and it has engendered debate among social conservatives, as well as revealing a split inside the Republican party between people who are strongly socially conservative, and those who are more socially moderate. This was not a "stupid comment" or a gaffe: the core issue (the role of social conservatism inside the Republican party and how it will affect the party's status) will continue to play out past 2012. Sue Gardner (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh.... your refs do not support your descriptions. They say Akin was an outlier, was ostracized by fellow Republicans, and that McCaskill could have won anyway (interesting but probably wrong) because allegedly she had lots of other issues. Most of your refs argue against its continued existence as a standalone. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My references do support my descriptions, and they do not argue against the continued existence of the article. The sources I cited say that "a massive backlash by female voters" caused two Republicans to lose seats they "should have won handily." They say "there is a tipping point, and Republicans who pushed it too far toppled their own careers" with candidates "around the nation" "sustain[ing] self-inflicted damage by clinging to their pro-life credentials, not realizing that the pro-life movement had pushed them to the edge of an abyss" and that "voters have shown they'll cross party lines to elect a good candidate and reject an extremist -- with women and the newest generation of voters leading the way." One article talks about how pro-life groups will change their tactics going forward. In another, the pro-life author describes herself as "troubled by the political conversations circulating today, where male politicians flippantly play fast and loose with real women’s health, real women’s lives, real babies." Another talks about the split in the Republican party itself, with some Republicans distancing themselves from Akin and others giving him "a flood of support." And the last link says this: "[The defeats of] Akin and Mourdock, both saddled by their refusal to allow women to choose abortion even in the case of rape, represent an historic and quite possibly permanent shift in religious values in U.S. politics. These extreme views will now cost a candidate an election, even in America’s heartland." The articles support that the Akin remarks were a significant cultural moment which exposed a split inside the American right, which (however it is resolved) will have important implications for the future of the Republican party. Again: significant controversy, international media attention, affected the outcome of the election, and will affect, going forward, the American debate over abortion and the place of social conservatism in the American right. Deserves its own article. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.... did you ACTUALLY follow either election that you refer to????? Missouri (and Indiana, the other state referred to) are pretty solidly pro-life. In Missouri, Akin's bizarre comment on biology allowed McCaskill to skirt the general pro-life/abortion issue, which was not a winner for her. In the other race you cite, the ardently pro-life Democrat won over the ardently pro-life Republican. The split in Republicans over Akin was more a tactical one; shun him (majority view) or hold nose and fund anyway. There is a section in the Missouri Senate campaign article for funding, and the issue of the sharp divide in whether to support Akin financially in spite of his comments hurt his election chances.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous209.6, I'm not sure how what you've written is on-topic, or responsive to what I wrote. And I'd like to ask you not to start your comments with "uh" -- it's a bit rude. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that keeping a standalone spinout to provide access to wild partisan speculation is contrary to WP:ADVOCATE, and more importantly, your prognostications of the prognostications aren't really grounded in the realities of the race(s) being discussed nor exit polls of US voters; wishful thinking is not a justification, and Akin's bizarre biology comments did not change the pro-life support of either highly pro-life state. Certainly the confidence of those State's parties that ANY pro-life candidate, regardless of how inexperienced or confrontational, could win has been chastened, though had the Republicans nominated a grocery store aspidisra, they would have done better than Akin.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The impact of these comments on the Missouri senate race is certainly notable, but that aspect of the issue can be covered in United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. To keep this article implies that their significance is broader than that. A Republican said something goofy and the media ran with it. In other words, it is macaca all over again. Obviously, second time is less notable than first. Kauffner (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To delete it would be blatant whitewashing; we don't do that, do we? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. No topic is too small to have its own legitimate article. IO Device (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is suggesting whitewashing anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there ARE topics too small for WP Articles, or we wouldn't have deletion discussions, or WP:N standards.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. The case for having a separate article here is stronger than it was in the Indiana Mourdock v. Donnely race, since the political fallout here was greater, for example while Mourdock retained central Republican support, Akin had his funding cut off and more or less disowned by the Republican leadership. Nevertheless, much of the article is a long list of reactions from media and politicians, much of which is news material and which could probably be culled without eliminating the main idea. In order to merge in a neat and elegant manner, the content will need to be shortened. If this is not feasible, the event is notable enough that a separate article can be justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this has a stronger case than the Mourdock article. However, the long list of reactions from the media and other politicians is as you say excessive. Cutting that leaves us with a small enough amount of material that we can merge where appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough sources to justify this being its own article. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NOTNOTNEWS. If it was a case of the subject saying something, and it gets reported all over the news that he said it and then that was that, then I'll support against inclusion on the ground of NOTNEWS. However, the broader context of the words and the surrounding controversy affects more than the single senate election and for that matter more than the various elections that took place. So much analysis and debate has taken place and been reported on in reliable sources that it sends this over to have enduring notability. Whether or not to merge shall be left to the separate RM discussion that's taking place at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent article. Certainly newsworthy, but not notable enough for an article of its own. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to something like 2012 U.S. Republican comments about rape: this, combined with other similar remarks from other Republican politicians, turned into one of the major national political skirmishes of both the 2012 elections and the U.S. abortion debate. It also gained attention globally: from an outside non-U.S. perspective, the whole thing was quite jaw-dropping. It's certainly not a candidate for merging into a mere state-level politics article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, close early, and counsel the nominator against such misguided nominations. This controversy received tremendous attention and arguably decided the outcome of a Senate race. Everyking (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that the Senate Race was more notable than most. No-one is advocating deletion of the Senate campaign article, or that the comments deserve to be mentioned there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the nomination doesn't refer to WP:DELETE particularly well. If we don't adher to the policies, what's going to be in Wikipedia is going to be arbitrary according to any temporary flock sentiment which is in eternal flux. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - By stating " and without this comment, it's possible that he would have won the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012" the nominator basically made the case for lasting impact and as such WP:NOTNEWS is not applying. This is far from being run-of-the-mill news. --Cyclopia^talk 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, news about a Senate campaign that has and article and a place for the information.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge Agree with Kauffner, this belongs in the Akin article, and/or the election article associated with his race. aprock (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep. This was not just an event in the Senate race in one state; it was an event and subsequent controversy which gathered international attention. For example, it was more widely-covered in the British media than the whole of the rest of the Senate election across the USA. A standalone article allows this topic to be covered in a depth proportionate to the intense and protracted scrutiny which it received in the global news media.
  Some editors above suggest that it could be merged by eliminating a lot of the reportage of reactions to the remarks; but those reactions area critical part of the episode. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Massive and much-talked-about impact. Be as wary of reactionary anti-recentism as of recentism. A well-sourced, well-written article like this shouldn't be deleted so quickly out of fears that it might not end up withstanding the test of time unless there's very strong consensus to do so. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per nom. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge I second Rsrikanth05. --Kondi (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elmer Clark, Sue Gardner, et al. This controversy started the whole ball rolling into a defeat for Akin and GOP -- ripped from the hands of victory. The Project needs this article. Without a detailed article, how will students, our core readership, understand in 2018 what happened six years before? Now, we know for certain, what effect this had, so recentism does not apply. If anything, this has become history. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Won't somebody think of the children?" is an odd keep argument. The students can read about this at Todd Akin and United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not as odd as continuing to deny reality-based real reality. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More specifically, "When Todd Akin ... and Richard Mourdock of Indiana put grenades in their mouths and pulled the pins, the ensuing explosions and shrapnel hurt the party and other candidates as well. A fair number of moderate Democrats were able to win in some pretty red states and districts.... But moderate Republicans running on correspondingly blue Democratic turf ... were dragged down by the weight of their red jerseys." In short, this single controversy hurt the GOP irreparably. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all the "keep, it's an important election turner!" arguments don't suggest what is in this article that could not be adequately covered in United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012 (merge would also be okay). And, in any event, it is only one of 100 Senate seats. If this was part of a presidential race, maybe. But I see no reason not to apply NOTNEWS, despite the admitted gravity it had on this race. Kansan (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that if it was merged, the resulting article would be very long indeed. Fact is, there's been so much coverage about this particular controversy that it would be inappropriate to try to address it solely within the scope of a broader article. Everyking (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not unless we give undue weight and put every bit of insignificant coverage in the article, which the current article does. Hekerui (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Bearian, Elmer Clark and Sue Gardner above. WP:NOTNEWS (which is actually WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) is meant for, as it clearly states, "breaking news" or "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." This controversy is certainly far past "breaking news" and nothing of a sort of routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. This was, and is, an ongoing series of discussion, analysis and controversy that even after the November 2012 elections is cited as one of the major factors in the elections outcomes that will be affecting government for years and a need for fundamental change in broad GOP appeal.[5][6][7][8][9] (These are just samples; there are many more.) It's even being discussed solely within the context of abortion after the election. [10]--Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up until the "need for fundamental change in broad GOP appeal" speculation, which violates WP:CRYSTAL and is highly unlikely, this is a "butterfly flaps its wings" argument, or this affected this in some way, which affected this which affected this, which FINALLY ends up being worthy of a WP article, therefore the butterfly flap also needs its own article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a few things to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. This controversy is entirely in the context of a political campaign which already has an article and with a few words about the impact on that race we're covered. Hekerui (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, the controversy is far beyond the context of just the Missouri election but reported to have an effect on the entire election cycle, the shape of government for years and broad (or lack of) appeal to the Republican party.--Oakshade (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: A standalone article is unduly disproportionate coverage for the subject. Simply because it's possible to write a lot about a particular topic does not mean that it's appropriate for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Mention the incident in the appropriate articles (Todd Akin, United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012, etc.), but there's no reason to have a separate article like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" Simply because it's possible to write a lot about a particular topic does not mean that it's appropriate for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia." - Uh, why? It doesn't fit any of the reasons for merging listed in WP:MERGE. If it's possible to write a lot about a notable topic, then a separate article is normally in order. --Cyclopia^talk 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to write a lot about a particular topic is not only the fundamental tenet behind WP:NOTABILITY, but Wikipedia as a whole. The basic premise behind our notability guidelines is that independent significant coverage has been given to a particular topic, ie, being able to write a lot about that topic, is why we have articles. --Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid that's simply wrong. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not a specialized (political) encyclopedia. It is not a directory or a news site or a dictionary or many other things. Our notability guidelines make it clear that we should have an article about Todd Akin and other House members. They are public, political figures who are notable and worthy of coverage. Our notability guidelines absolutely do not suggest (or even hint) that it's appropriate to create spin-off articles like the one being discussed here, simply because it's possible to write a lot on the subject. Wikipedia as a whole has an issue with this concept. Editors often have this distorted notion that because something gets a lot of media coverage, it's somehow important or notable (and consequently worthy of inclusion here). When the reality of course is that the news media will report on nearly anything and we, as editors, must make sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form. In this case, the topic can be covered in a few paragraphs in a larger article. I don't believe anyone disagrees with including this particular information on Wikipedia, but there's no reason to have a separate article. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not a specialized (political) encyclopedia." - Nobody is saying it is a specialized encyclopedia.
• "Our notability guidelines absolutely do not suggest (or even hint) that it's appropriate to create spin-off articles like the one being discussed here, simply because it's possible to write a lot on the subject." From WP:SPLIT: "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is recommended that a split be carried out. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia)." - This is exactly this case. By keeping a separate article, we can discuss the topic in full, following sources coverage, without putting undue weight sections in the main article.
• "Editors often have this distorted notion that because something gets a lot of media coverage, it's somehow important or notable" - If editors often have this "distorted notion", then maybe this notion is consensus, or at least a reasonable notion, and not a "distortion".
• " we, as editors, must make sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form." - We, as editors, must follow our sources and their coverage. We're not here to arbitrarely include or exclude topics on a subjective "judgement". We have guidelines that strive to be objective. And nothing in our notability or other guidelines excludes this article.--Cyclopia^talk 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Re: general-purpose, WP specifically is not EVERYTHING. I believe that is the point being made.
2. Re: Spinouts discouraged. Yes, this IS a general principle. With regards to SPLIT, you seem to disregard the modifier "non-central" in your justification. If you believe that the Akin comments were "non-central" to his election, then you are arguing they did not matter to the election (hence no article). If you are arguing as you do elsewhere that they are "central" to his election, that is an argument AGAINST a spinout, and FOR expansion within the main article.
3. Re: the last two, which are in fact one sentiment, completely contrary to WP's purpose, namely the notion that WP should simply reflect what appears in todays' papers, or attack blogs, similar to the variant, WP should reflect google hits. Judgement of what is Encyclopedic, which is very different from what sells newspapers is the very essence of WP. That editors often mistake google hits or news mentions for notability is a problem, WP should not follow problems. Following google hits would make WP a porn distributor, not an encyclopedia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And in fact it's not EVERYTHING. We have criteria to choose what to cover! And these criteria are under WP:N, and this topic meets them.

Second, "non-central" does not mean "insignificant". It mattered, a lot, and in fact it should also be mentioned in the main article: but it's best covered in full separately, per WP:UNDUE.

"Judgement of what is Encyclopedic [...] is the very essence of WP." -You are mistaken. "Encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" are circular fallacies. See WP:UNENCYC. --Cyclopia^talk 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if you argue WP:UNDUE prohibits expansion of the section in the Senate Campaign article, you are arguing it was not important to the Senate race. You can't argue it isn't important enough to expand its mention where it belongs and simultaneously argue that it is critical to the race to get a standalone.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems you have a naive understanding of the concept of undue weight. The point of undue weight is not about mere "importance", is about general article content balance. Is this episode notable and important? Yes, it is, so the campaign article should mention it quite extensively. However it is so notable and has generated so much coverage that we have to split it to be able to cover it in full without dominating the campaign article. Just as we do for tons of other articles. We have a paragraph on the atmosphere of Jupiter in Jupiter#Atmosphere, but since it is such a vast and important topic, we also have a separate Atmosphere of Jupiter article -and it's separate exactly because it is important! The logic is the same here. --Cyclopia^talk 23:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:SPLIT, but you seem to be jumping to a different conclusion. That is, if you have a five-paragraph article about Todd Akin and three of the paragraphs discuss this incident, yes, it's disproportionate and should be fixed. That isn't a reason to create a separate article, though. You can either expand the Akin article to be better balanced or you can reduce the amount of information about this incident. The entire incident can surely be summed up in a few sentences. I'm not sure why more would be needed.

My point regarding a specialized encyclopedia is that in a political encyclopedia, it probably would make sense to have individual articles about incidents like this. In a general-purpose encyclopedia, there has to be some balance and editorial judgment. Is this incident really so important that it deserves a standalone article? No, I don't think so. Others here in this discussion seem to agree.

Regarding a distorted notion, editors may simply need a bit of education. :-)

And regarding following sources, yes, we are a tertiary source. We collect primary and secondary sources here and we re-report what they say. This is a defining point of WP:V. However, we absolutely do make editorial judgments about what to and what not to include. We do so with WP:BLP and many other policies and guidelines in mind. We are not attempting to be objective robots. The reason we have human editors is that they come with human judgment. Our editors are able to discern whether having a standalone article is justified or not. In this case, I believe it is not and I voted that way accordingly. Others disagree, though I'm still a bit lost as to why the Todd Akin or United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 articles are insufficient here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire incident can surely be summed up in a few sentences. I'm not sure why more would be needed. - Read the article and you'll easily find why. There is a huge amount of significant coverage that has been made, and no reason to remove it altogether from our readers.

Is this incident really so important that it deserves a standalone article? No, I don't think so. - The point is that what we "think" is really irrelevant. I may personally think that this is not a really important incident, too. But my personal judgement on the topic is irrelevant: what counts, for us, is what the outside world decided to do. And the outside world seems to have deemed this topic hugely notable and deserving of coverage, and an article has been written on it by editors, and we have no objective reason to go against all of that.

And yes, we have to try to be "objective robots" as much as possible, that's the whole point of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BIAS etc. Unfortunately the task of building an encyclopedia is still not suited to automated algorithms, so it's up to humans to do that . Do humans put their subjectivity in building it? Yes, unavoidably. But it's a bug, not a feature. We should try as hard as we can to put away our personal biases. --Cyclopia^talk 20:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the media will certainly not "report on nearly anything". Secondly, if one is going to put so much emphasis on making "sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form", then it's important than one actually be good at it. The purpose of this AfD, in fact, is to make such a judgment. If people conclude that the tremendous attention given to this controversy demonstrates notability, then perhaps they are correct. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course they do. :-) You've got a 24-hour news cycle on television and on the Internet these days. Plus there are various levels of media (local, regional, national, international) and a widening number of outlets (blogs, Twitter, print, other online sources, etc.). There's media coverage of nearly everything and anything and a lot of it (probably most of it) is redundant and unencyclopedic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tremendous attention." It's been covered in the press and it deserves a mention here on Wikipedia. The question becomes whether it's so important and so notable that it deserves a standalone article. I haven't read anything from you or others that indicates that a standalone article is needed. The article itself has very little substance, all of which could easily be included in other articles such as Todd Akin or United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define "needed". Because no article is "needed", per se. What has to be proven is if we need to remove it. Such a need has not been shown. About the media, again, we're not talking of news trivia like today's weather. We're talking of something that had exhaustive coverage and real effects on an election outcome. --Cyclopia^talk 19:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am so surprised to hear you say this, MZ, and I am surprised by everyone who talks about this as though it were just about Akin, or just about Missouri --- it's so totally not. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote up-thread, but really, this is a defining moment for social conservatives in the Republican party. Good bad or indifferent, the reaction to Akin's comments is indicative of social change. It's an indicator --not the only indicator, or even maybe the most important indicator, but an indicator nonetheless-- that American values are shifting, and that extreme social conservatism is being increasingly rejected. It's an important moment, and there's plenty of media coverage explaining why. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with the up-thread comments, you are again making wild speculations and WP:CRYSTAL / WP:OR about what WILL happen and what overblown significance the defeat of an already gaffe-prone minor politician will have nationally. The pure wishful thinking that candidates in strongly pro-life states such as Missouri or Indiana will all suddenly now become pro-choice/abortion is a jaw-dropper, considering there was no change in the attitudes of voters in those States; the Democrat winner in IN was the type of conservative Dem that primaries often exclude (in IN, nobody wanted to run against Lugar), whereas the main story in Missouri was that too MANY good candidates wanted to run against McCaskill, and McCaskill actively threw money to skew the Republican primary to choose an opponent prone to mistakes. The argument in Republican circles is over the issue of Party discipline.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per various above. CarolMooreDC 05:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merge a modicum, but no redirect. This is a minor event that is best covered in a sentence or two in the appropriate article. --Bejnar (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article would NOT be a useful redirect, true, and all relevant Articles would direct to the Senate campaign or Akin articles, but would not object to creating a "legitimate rape" redirect once this is deleted.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • You believe this controversy is only worth a sentence or two in all of Wikipedia? Do you support having the article on the Senate race? If so, how in the world can you properly cover that race without some discussion of the defining event of that race? Everyking (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is the defining moment of the race, WP:UNDUE would argue that it should be a major component of the article on the Senate race. A sentence or two is inappropriate there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete - Information can be merged into the article on the specific MO election, but the I'm not sure if title itself should exist as a redirect, which would prevent a merge from taking place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More than amply meets WP:GNG, very influential event, greatly affected election results, much commented-upon. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have already cast my opinion earlier above, but I would like to add that there are numerous comment controversy articles on Wikipedia - these exist rightfully. Are the deletionists going to delete or merge them all now? Examples are Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, Pat Robertson controversies, Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, Jeremiah Wright controversy, Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy, Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, and Alan Jones shame controversy, among several others. --IO Device (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC) --IO Device (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am all for keeping the article, but to accuse editors who want it deleted to be misogynists is insulting nonsense. Please redact. --Cyclopia^talk 20:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you've redacted. Thanks . --Cyclopia^talk 20:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Your comments above are now irrelevant and confusing in perspective, which is why the first of two was commented. Is this logic so difficult to grasp intuitively? Also, while you have a privilege to comment, it's none of your business asking users to redact their words in a non-article page. --IO Device (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally understand the logic, still you have no right to edit other users' comments without their permission. I didn't touch your comments, for example: I just asked you to remove them. I've striken my comments anyway, I guess it makes sense now. And yes, to politely ask to redact comments that go against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is in the business of every editor. --Cyclopia^talk 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find you more bureaucratic than pragmatic, somewhat judgmental, and also having a problem with free speech. When outsiders complain of awful Wikipedia bureaucracy, this is the kind of thing they're talking about. I don't believe I insulted anyone, and certainly not anyone in particular. Everyone can exhibit a bit of subjective misogyny and/or philogyny at times - they may have their reasons for it. It's not my business to judge these words as you did. --IO Device (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Process exists for a reason -one can complain about bureaucracy, but it's the lesser evil, compared to chaos. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are necessary if you don't want to make this place a hideous clusterfuck. I have no problem with such comments in real life or elsewhere on the Internet, but they can't be tolerated here. And again, it is everybody's business to make sure this environment doesn't become toxic. That said, I'd say we can stop this discussion and move on. --Cyclopia^talk 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete. This is a recentism and WP:NOTNEWS issue. This issue relates to Akin and the election he took part in, and should be covered in these articles, at an appropriate (and probably reduced) level of detail. Dedicating a separate detailed article to who said what etc. in the context of an election campaign is newspaper coverage, not encyclopedic coverage.  Sandstein  18:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Apparently, no admin wants to touch this AfD with a 39-and-a-half foot pole as it's two days past the earliest close date. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lulz are stong with this one. Another "X Y controversy" that has ceased to be relevant, pushed by politically-motivated POV. Add a blurb to the moron's bio and move on. §FreeRangeFrog 21:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge content into the relevant Senate race article -- Samir 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP is not a newspaper this is a newsworthy story, however at the time there is no indication of this being a catalyst for something else. Mtking ^(edits) 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.