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

Comment: Within the Richard Mourdock article, the sources contribute to the  of the Richard Mourdock biography topic. However, when you move the controversy sources into their own stand alone article, they no longer are independent of the topic - the controversy sources are part of controversy topic. In that regard, the controversy sources need to have news articles (or books, or magazines, etc.) writing about them to provide the independent reliable sources needed to meet . Here, the topic fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Richard Mourdock.  This is definitely not a viable search term as it is, and while I believe this event has received |significiant coverage and that |reliable sources have commented that it will likely affect his career long-term, it is content that is worth keeping.  However, it really should be merged where it will be found:  Over on the BLP article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: or '''merge'''. This clearly has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as required under . As others have mentioned, however, Wikipedia is , and one questions the lasting  this controversy will have. On another note, we ought to have a notability guideline that encompasses elections, which inevitably skew coverage through incessant attention on candidates' actions and attempts to manufacture controversies like these. It's clear to me that there's an element of  to this kind of coverage: news outlets are pretty much forced to cover elections closely. A guideline could say it's generally better to include information about controversies in the candidate's article instead of creating a separate article until after the election, since it often takes until the political fervor dies down to determine whether the campaign's controversies had lasting effects that made them independently notable. If a controversy is seen by reliable sources to have played a major role in a candidate's success or defeat, for example, I could see the logic in having a separate article on it. On the other hand, early-campaign controversies like Mitt Romney's dog are more likely to be forgotten and have no lasting effect whether he wins or loses. From a practical standpoint, it makes more sense to me to expand the information in the candidate's biography and wait until after the election to decide whether it has lasting coverage (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EFFECT||WP:ROUTINE||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: Notable means lasting coverage and the only way that this will be notable is if it ends up impacting the election - until that point it's a matter of .  In the midst of a major election it's expected that anything close to a gaffe will be picked up by most major news outlets; in the short term coverage is artificially strong but it's impossible to tell what will and won't be significant when it's over.  I would have !voted redirect but I don't think many people will be typing in "Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy" and so a redirect doesn't seem to serve much purpose
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Clearly has enough sources to be .  The story should not simply be merged because of its relation to the Romney Campaign(He just cut an add for him today), which is also being covered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The specific issue has received in-depth coverage by multiple sources in the prestige press, including CBS Newshttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57538757/richard-mourdock-even-pregnancy-from-rape-something-god-intended/, the Boston Globehttp://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/10/23/mourdock-god-work-when-rape-leads-pregnancy/JtGh7c8Jgqytur9bjX4O0N/story.html, the New York Timeshttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/indiana-senate-candidate-draws-fire-for-rape-comments/, CNNhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/, the Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/23/mourdock-god-intended-for-babies-to-result-from-rape/, and the Los Angeles Timeshttp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-mourdock-rape-20121023,0,3802264.story, amongst many others. If that's not |"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then nothing is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The  is overwhelming for this.  The sources are international, the most prominent, and wildly viral.  There is not a single Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of an article with sources this substantial.  I suppose there are certain partisans who would not care for the article's existence, but we cannot listen to bias.  We must follow policy.  We rarely, rarely, rarely see  of this level and magnitude
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: Are you goddamn shitting me? This gets an article? Keep it to the Indiana Senate campaign and Mourdock articles and leave it at that. This is a textbook example of  and . &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: NN as its own event, only within context of Mourdock's campaign.  at this point, really
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: I frankly don't care what , this is just the latest temporary flare up of the political spin cycle and hardly independently worth of a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: per . Absurd to give this an article; it belongs in the senate section
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)