Deletion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

Comment: Not being neutral is not a reason to delete an article (), especially on a notable topic that was one of the central themes in the 2012 US elections. If we can maintain an NPOV in articles concerning abortion and Palestine, it is certainly possible here as well. I don't agree that this should be renamed to a POV title and wonder why the nominator did not try to address POV issues through editing or by engaging on the talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SUSCEPTIBLE)

Comment: Lack of neutrality is a |surmountable problem, not one that should be addressed by AfD, not to mention that the nom is greatly overstating the problem, although that is beside my point. If you're unhappy with an article's apparent POV or another policy violation, then just . This applies not only to the nom but also to many of the Delete arguments I see here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM||WP:FIXIT)

Comment: These comments are identified by source after source as having had significant and measurable effects on the outcome of the US elections. It's a textbook example of an article that should be kept under . There are problems with the article, but they can and should be solved by editing; these repeated attempts to |censor anything that paints Republicans in an unfavorable light, like the fact that they lost the election, are really quite tiresome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Notable theme in 2012 US politics, much commented upon in national and international press. Handily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and, as said above, trout nominator for forum-shopping.  is not a valid reason for deletion. The fuss over these comments was a major issue in the elections, and played sufficiently badly for women voters that it may have had a significant effect on the outcome of the election in terms of popular vote. This passes the notability, verifiability and reliable sources criteria by a very wide margin. If there are POV problems, fix them in the article, not here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:DONTLIKEIT)

Comment: this is exactly the same sort of rubbish we saw with ''"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy|Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy"''. Election-prompted, non-NPOV, political attack articles designed to |synth together a bunch of notionally related things. We would need far more of http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14980822-rape-remarks-sink-two-republican-senate-hopefuls?lite these sorts of sources to verify that it is a specifically recognised concept beyond ''"this general idea got some related people into arguably similar trouble"''. Beyond that, just applying the NPOV brush would see a good deal of the content removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: You can't just |stitch together  a bunch of "controversial" statements into an article and try to paint it as some all-encompassing, overreaching meta-controversy.  This would be like taking all the things that War on Terror critics said in the mid-2000's and making an Freedom-hating controversies in the 2004 United States elections article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: and ask all who have voted to delete based upon  to come up with a '''good''' reason
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SUSCEPTIBLE)

Comment: this article is the consensus target of all the other 'rape controversy' articles, and the |consensus can't change that quickly.  Renaming is likewise against the settled opinion of the Project.  We just went through this folks, please, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|don't kick a dead horse
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: having a dedicated article to me violates NPOV and gives |undue weight to the comments. THey need to be in their respective election articles or bio articles
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: A very bad rational for deleting the article is, "It will be really really hard to make it .  Not only does this clearly meet  there is a clear  of these events when taken together.  From the article itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:EFFECT)