Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy
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 
— User:Batard0, 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EFFECT||WP:ROUTINE||WP:PERSISTENCE (Wikipedia:Notability)