Deletion of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

Comment: I really, really, ''really'' wish more people would closely read ,  and . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: Per / 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:UNDUE||WP:RS)

Comment: per , and per "can't we find anything in the world more relevant to an encyclopaedia than endless sub-sub-subarticles on US politicians
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

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 . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: An independent article is completely unnecessary. This is a case of  at best,  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 , then we can recreate it later... but even then I think it will be violating 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:POVFORK||WP:EFFECT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Besides overwhelmingly passing  of , 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.   does not and has never "banned" articles about one event (this is an ongoing series of events actually).   is simply a guideline on how to deal with articles that are in fact about one event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:EVENT)

Comment: mdash; Yes, this scandal has received significant coverage, but has it developed into something with lasting significance? That has yet to be established; see . 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 , 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT||WP:BLP)

Comment: 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 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  in mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Per  Special:Contributions/65.200.157.66|65.200.157.66
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: with Todd Akin and pare down to comply with . The relevant section in the bio should include a link to Pregnancy from rape
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Meets , as others have said above me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: classic . 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  (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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:EVENT)

Comment: or '''Merge''', per , and above editors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: no justification for this single facet of a notable individual's life getting an article its own when the parent article is lacking comprehensiveness (). 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:AVOIDSPLIT)

Comment: Fails . 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.&ndash; Sir
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: per notnews, undue, and .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:NODEADLINE)

Comment: Editors quoting "WPNOTNEWS" might re-read . 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 (term)|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.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept 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  the best option. Wikipedia shouldn't have to wait four years to cover this in a substantive way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: per  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  supports inclusion on other levels.  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 ''http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/todd-akin-rape-apology-ad-/1#.UDPyNs8X6JN USA Today, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-todd-akin-piers-morgan-gutless-little-twerp-20120821,0,4674719.story Los Angeles Times, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-eye-tuesday-deadline-for-akin/2012/08/21/fcf695a2-eb8c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html?hpid=z1 The Washington Post, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/politics/ignoring-calls-to-quit-akin-appeals-to-voters-in-ad.html?_r=1&hp The New York Times, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/08/2012821181619353924.html Al Jazeera, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0821/Why-Claire-McCaskill-wants-Todd-Akin-to-stay-in-Missouri-race Christian Science Monitor, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/21/mitt-romney-todd-akin-quit-race The Guardian, http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3802328.ece The Hindu, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/romney-tells-akin-to-quit-senate-race-over-rape-gaffe/story-e6frg6so-1226455394737 The Australian, http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-fallout-rape-abortion-and-the-dark-history-of-qualifying-violence-against-women/ Time, http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/14635766-418/campaign-withdrawl-deadline-looms-as-rep-todd-akin-seeks-forgiveness.html Chicago Sun-Times'' as well as those listed above by Sonicyouth86 demonstrate both breadth (, ) and depth () 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:EVENT||WP:DIVERSE||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:DONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Article's dripping in ecentism, just happened, and fails the vent rule
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:E)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: per  and . 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 Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/86.40.102.241|86.40.102.241
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: 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 . 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RAPID)

Comment: per Khazar2 and esp. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: per . 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RAPID)

Comment: per WP:NOTNEWS & , No need for an article. This can be covered sufficiently in Akin's article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)