Deletion of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy

Comment: 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 .  Merge discussion Talk:Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#Requested_move|here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP is |not a NEWSPAPER|newspaper this is a newsworthy story, however at the time there is no indication of this being | a catalyst for something else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: 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  is not applying. This is far from being run-of-the-mill news
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the nomination doesn't refer to  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELETE)

Comment: More than amply meets , very influential event, greatly affected election results, much commented-upon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a recentism and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  and Bearian, Elmer Clark and Sue Gardner above.  WP:NOTNEWS (which is actually ) 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.http://www.missourinet.com/2012/11/13/missouri-house-leader-assesses-the-2012-general-election-akin-effect/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/karen-hughes-rape_n_2117174.htmlhttp://www.pal-item.com/article/20121112/OPINION/311120009/How-tea-party-cost-GOP-Senatehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/yitz-jordan/gop-please-ditch-the-soci_b_2114377.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-bevan/republican-party-social-issues_b_2102131.html (These are just samples; there are many more.)  It's even being discussed solely within the context of abortion after the election. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/beyond-akin-current-us-law-is-failing-sexual-assault-victims/265095
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: 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  - this event (/these events) had a verifiable and lasting effect on the general election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT)