Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy from rape


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy from rape

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Currently this article has two components. The first section is a well-cited bit about rates of pregnancy when someone is raped. This is relatively short but crucial, and I think should be merged with Rape (which surprisingly does not have this information.) The remainder is a list of people who have made remarks about how rape is less likely to cause pregnancy because (insert reason here), including Todd Akin's recent comments. The biographical articles on those individuals already cover their comments, and I'm not really sure what the encyclopedic value is in listing these in one place (we don't have an article listing all the 9/11 "Truthers", for instance, and both views are equally "supported" by scientific evidence.) In addition, the opening tag line makes an uncited non-NPOV comment about how "many pro-life advocates" believe that pregnancy is less likely when a woman is raped - certainly the number is' non-zero but it reads like a general attack on pro-lifers, which isn't encyclopedic. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that rape can cause pregnancy is a fact that has confused people for years. ( See NY Times Story: Myth About Rape and Pregnancy Is Not New It isn't something new.  Moreover, this is directly in conflict with scientific evidence.  The article is clearly a start.  However, it is something that should be allowed to develop.  Casprings (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment First, Casprings created the article, and I'm not questioning their intent. I don't think WP:HASPOT holds because the scientific part of the article (e.g. what should be on the page) is quite short, a paragraph or two, and would fit in better with the main article on Rape.  What's the encyclopedic value in listing people who believe that pregnancy and rape are somehow uncorrelated in the same article?  It's like the article reads "here is the scientific evidence and here are losers who don't believe it for some reason."  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't political views(or can't they be) WP:N ?  Why wouldn't it be encyclopedic to document those views?  Those views are documented here Climate change denial  Casprings (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The views are already documented on the bio articles on those with sufficient notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a group thinks something then that needs to be documented. Casprings (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "First, Casprings created the article, and I'm not questioning their intent." I can't say I really understand the reason you pointed out that Casprings created the article unless you actually were trying to imply that he or she has some sort of outside motivation.  Forgive me if I missed something.  AgnosticAphid  talk 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Implies all rape is man-on-woman. If it were Minorities and their role in crime, you would not (I hope) be arguing to keep, but it's conceptually no different. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThat is a good point. While I am not sure that is a good point to delete, it is a good point to change the name.  I will change the name, and see if it supports your thoughts.  Casprings (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this article is altruistically concerned with educating the small numbers of people who don't understand how human reproduction works, and has nothing to do with pointlessly using wikipedia as a political tool to point out Representative Aiken's dumb election-year rape gaffe, it seems that you could leave the Aiken part out and communicate the message just as effectively. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the current title "Pregnancy from rape" it seems pretty clear, and non-male-on-female rape not an issue. --Lquilter (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, no men had ever gotten pregnant from being raped. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (For anyone looking up male rape victims, articles exist on rape by gender discussing both male-on-male, and female-on-male rape, noting both statutory and forcible, as well as male-male prison rape. Not relevant to AFD though.) FT2 (Talk 23:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in principle possible for a female-to-male transgender person to be raped and become pregnant. They are disproportionate targets of rape; however their hormonal treatments inhibit their fertility. As far as I know, no such case has yet occurred, so it would be mere speculation to discuss it in the article. Dcoetzee 02:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Further Comment The science part of this article is duplicated on the existing article Effects and aftermath of rape (which covers not just pregnancy but other biological and psychological issues as well.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete - This article is nonsense and is simply here because this editor, Casprings, has a dogged hold on making sure Todd Akin is disgraced as thoroughly as possible. Casprings writes: "The fact that rape can cause pregnancy is a fact that has confused people for years." Are these the same people who think that toilet seats make you pregnant or that babies are delivered by storks? Since the most common understanding of "rape" is that it is forced sexual intercourse, only people without knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" is would believe that sex doesn't play a big part in making babies. The subject of this article belongs squarely at the Rape article, not in its own separate content fork. We don't need to hold people's hands as if they are all idiots and make articles like this. -- Avanu (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of articles debunking stupid ideas. Should we not bother to have one on the Yeti because 'everybody knows' there isn't a Yeti? Risingrain (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete - If I need to respond as to why, shame on who asks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Are you kidding me? Delete per NOM. JOJ  Hutton  04:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is a WP:COATRACK to further the creator's perverse desire to smear a politician. Article is pure OR from start to finish.   Belch fire - TALK  04:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Neutral. I do believe that this is a subject that should be covered in Wikipedia. As incredibly stupid as the people who state "you can't get pregnant from rape" might seem, this myth has been spread around for a long time and obviously is something that some believe. That a notable politician would believe this shows that it's not just "Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel" that propagates these myths. That this myth has existed this long and has been commented on in several reliable sources and through several notable people merits a mention somewhere. HOWEVER, I don't think that there needs to be an entire article based around it and I agree that this article reads like a soapbox for a specific viewpoint. It'd need almost an entire re-write to be encyclopedic. I agree that this page should be deleted, but I do think that there needs to be a mention of this in the main rape article somewhere. I'm not sure exactly what it should be labeled (rape myths? controversy?)and who knows, maybe there's enough out there that could justify an article. I just know that right now, this current incarnation of the article is not the way to go about it. This article was written with an agenda. The user might have had good intentions and emotions that I fully sympathize with, but this is not the way to go about creating an article about this particular subject. If someone can re-write this to be encyclopedic and less WP:POINT-y, I'd look into changing my vote, but this current incarnation of the article just isn't kosher.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a myth, but the trouble is that there seems to be some evidence to back it up, some of which is even discussed in sources proximate to those used in this article. An "inconvenient truth". (Now where have I heard that before?)  Belch fire - TALK 06:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for this bit (both sides of it, of course) to be more diplomatically, accurately, and neutrally written elsewhere, but not necessarily in this article at this point in time. I just don't think that this current incarnation of the article does the idea proper justice and is more of a WP:POINTy mess.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken. I think we can both agree that the true purpose of this article is something different than it's title would suggest.   Belch fire - TALK  08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that. It's pretty much a thinly veiled attack page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with an "attack"--your word--if its neutrally worded and correcting a grave error. AND WTF -- I am still shaking my head at Belchfire's suggestion above that there is "evidence" to "back it up".  I hope he gets quoted in the Daily Mail or something.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this article, which is fundamentally about Todd Akin and US politics. It's right that Wikipedia covers the risk of pregnancy arising from a rape incident somewhere, but I don't see why it can't be covered under rape.— S Marshall  T/C 07:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep While effects and aftermath of rape provides a general overview of the subject, there are sufficient sources to warrant a standalone article on pregnancies from rape that meets WP:GNG. Given the recent media kerfuffle surrounding this topic, it's not surprising that there are concerns over the neutrality of such an article. However, concerns over the neutrality of the current article have no bearing on whether the topic itself is notable. Considering that there is some real world dispute over whether raped women can become pregnant, it is apparent that an article exploring the topic is rather needed. Gobōnobo  + c 09:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can re-write it to where it's neutral, well-sourced, and provides viewpoints from both sides, I'd be willing to switch to a keep. I just feel that right now this would have to be almost completely nuked and re-written to be encyclopedic.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, this would imply we also need an article on Rape and Bathing or Rape and HIV/AIDS, in light of comments by Jacob Zuma, where he admitted to having unprotected sex with a woman who accused his of rape, but claimed that he took a shower afterwards to cut the risk of contracting HIV. Jacob Zuma is the president of South Africa. I'm sure you can find a LOT of people in politics and in the general public that believe unusual or completely ridiculous things. I don't believe that means we need to create articles for each and every stupid belief that people might conjure up. -- Avanu (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If confusion and controversy about rape and bathing had been the subject of commentary by numerous secondary sources over a long period, the subject of numerous academic studies, as well as an influential political topic over the course of many years, then Rape and Bathing should exist. If not, then your parallel with the present article falls apart. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wha? The union of spermatozoon and gamete leds to fertilization. When this occurs in humans we call it "pregnancy."  It doesn't matter if it's in vitro or in vivo; via human intercourse, rape, incest, or implantation.  It all results in the same thing, and all of them are possible.  I'm guessing either I missed the point entirely, or the article does. WP:COATRACK for being spaghetti someone is trying to stick to any wall they can. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * MERGE Merge back to Rape. Don't think this would be more than a footnote if not for poltics. 216.81.94.73 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:COATRACK for which the only purpose seems to be to link Romney with Todd Akin and Akin's moronic statement on Rape. The creator of this article should be ashamed of themselves.  Arzel (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Effects and aftermath of rape. The parent Rape article is long, and it's reasonable to redirect this to the most appropriate spinout.  This is a plausible search term, however.  And, sadly, it's possible that sufficient development will occur at the target article to warrant this being re-spunout in future.  Contrary to what some comments here have implied, the myth that rape cannot cause pregnancy is by no means new, and by no means isolated to any one current politician.  Frankly, absent the current controversy, I'd probably argue to keep and expand this article -- but that controversy ensures that we would have a difficult time doing so in an NPOV manner at the moment.  So, instead, let's give the (non-coatrack) information a proper place to develop, and re-examine its placement if the time comes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough work is being done on this, especially with the historical references, that I don't think Effects and aftermath of rape (much less Rape) would be well-served by the merger. Vigilance will be necessary to prevent recent political statements from having undue weight, but that's an editorial issue rather than a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ample reputable sources given in the article demonstrate (a) the frequency of rape pregnancy has been the subject of serious academic study for years and (b) although the academic sources seem to uniformly agree that rape pregnancy is not particularly unlikely, there has been persistent confusion and political controversy on the topic for many years (centuries, in fact! ). Hence, the notability of this topic is hard to question.  The main reasons to delete seem to be either that (1) the subject is too "obvious" to include, which is contradicted by both the public confusion and by the judgement of experts that academic studies were worthwhile or (2) that we shouldn't include this topic because it has become embroiled in recent political controversy.  (2) might be a reasonable point if this were only a recent controversy, but ample sources demonstrate that is not the case.  Using a recent controversy as an excuse to exclude a topic of longstanding notability on the other hand, is the exact opposite of WP:RECENT and WP:NPOV. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider renaming to something like "Pregnancy from Rape Controversy" if focus remains on that aspect. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let it developed and later on it can be argued if to merge as a full section under Rape or keep separate. Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This should be allowed to develop.  The article continues to improve and is very different from the article I uploaded to start.  I suggest if anything, a relisting might be the best solution.  Casprings (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fork. This is Campaign 2012 fallout, in my estimation, a pseudosubject emerging as a result of election year "Stupid Politicians Saying Stupid Shit." Wikipedia need not have an article to refute every ignorant pronouncement of the banjo-plucking pols from redstate America... Carrite (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, this subject has a long history that goes far beyond the 2012 campaign, with commentary by numerous prominent and reputable sources (such as multiple academic studies). Nor is it purely of political and legal interest&mdash;as one of the cited sources (Gottschall, 2003) points out, the topic is of importance in evolutionary biology as well because it bears on the question of rape's influence on evolution ("Critics of evolutionary theories of human rape, especially those theories that invoke the possibility of rape-specific adaptation, often deem rape-pregnancy statistics critically important.") — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Such a massive and long-studied topic that this piece suddenly emerged from the ether on August 22, 2012, in the aftermath of the Akin Asininity. What an astonishing coincidence!!! Face it: this piece simply WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED if not for Bozo the Clown being stupid. And it is not Wikipedia's place to create elaborately sourced psuedoarticles on pseudotopics to provide political Ooomph to one side of an electoral skirmish. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needed to exist before this. Sadly a lot of stupid ideas are commonplace and influential and therefore notable.  Bozo the Clown may have inspired its creation now, but its the beliefs and actions of all the other people that make it notable.  Granted that Bozo the Clown's contribution to this topic should be a mere mention at best, and the second part of the article needs a lot of cleaning up to not just be a hit-list of idiotic commenters, but rather a real discussion of the role of the argument in politics. --Lquilter (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What do you think a women who was rapped and had a child would say about this page? Hillabear10 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion debate. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point exactly! Hillabear10 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

--Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (but guard against WP:COATRACK) — Pregnancy from rape is a common event about which there is research, misinformation, multiple political controversies, and legislation. The Akin controversy reflects some of these issues and their political salience. However, per NPOV and COATRACK, this page should not be turned into a "why Todd Akin is stupid" page. Discuss his comments at Todd Akin instead, leaving only a brief mention on this article.--Carwil (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've waited to weigh in on this, but it appears this is a real issue, a separate issue, with real coverage of it.  The Akin controversy article, if not kept, should be folded in here.  Dr. Fred Mecklenburg's 1972 article may have spawned a lot of the modern debate, but enough has been written about this, not just in August 2012, for this to be a legitimate article.--Milowent • has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep while minding Carwil's caveat regarding WP:COATRACK. Subject appears notable on its own terms, and the article now has enough secondary RS's (outside of the current controversy) to meet WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as a clear cotrack from the Todd Akin article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 August 2012
 * Keep since the topic is clearly notable, per (a) multiple scientific studies [in two different fields -- sociobiology and also social science research around this question of politics]; (b) use in politics and persuasion; and (c) popular belief.
 * As to the fact that the article is being written now because of a political mis-step by an American politician -- well, quel surprise. Articles are frequently inspired by news-of-the-day.  We then have the task of sorting out whether it's of mere fleeting interest or whether it's of long-standing notability.  Here the topic is clearly of long-standing notability.
 * As to the relationship to the main article on rape -- As with all sub-topics, the appropriate thing to do is to have a succinct summary of the issue in the article on the main topics (rape and pregnancy, with a bit more in the rape article and a bit less in the pregnancy article IMO), and a "see also" link for further research.
 * As to is this merely an attack page -- No, it's not merely an attack page, because the topic has notably inspired quite a bit of research and discussion.  What to do about Mr. Akin's comments?  Don't over-emphasize them and be sure they are of real historical note, not mere passing note.  In my view they are of mere passing note in the over-all history of the pregnancy from rape controversy, but probably of more than passing note in the article on Mr. Akin himself.
 * And finally, as to whether this topic is written for or against one or another view on the matter -- we can and should remain neutral on controversial topics. The fact that it is a controversial topic, or the fact that it is in part based on multiple common misunderstandings about biology -- none of that is relevant to whether this is a notable topic.  We're not promoting the misunderstanding nor are we attacking someone's religious beliefs simply by encyclopedically reporting a notable topic, which happens to be a common misunderstanding used for political gain.
 * Delete or Merge: obvious COATRACK designed to keep the Akin controversy alive and mentioned in as many articles as necessary. The cherrypicked list of people politicizes the article during the election season and is unacceptable.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the list of people cherry-picked? What portion of the article is a coatrack, i.e. does not directly relate to the topic of rape pregancies (science, politics, law, and history)?  In what way do the sources (stretching back centuries) on this topic not demonstrate that it has longstanding notability?  And if it is a topic with longstanding notability, are you arguing that we should exclude an article about it because the topic has arisen in political news recently?  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it not a coatrack? On the original article, you had a list of five people who made statements thinking that there was some sort of inverse correlation between rape and pregnancy.  Three of them had their party affiliation listed (including Akin), another has it called out that there was a Romney endorsement in 2007.  More words were spent calling out these people than the actual science bit of the article.  How does that not meet WP:COATRACK?  (Much of this is still in the article as well.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that the only legitimate subject of an article is the "actual science" of rape and pregnancy. However, numerous secondary sources support the notability of the political and legal influence of the idea that rape suppresses pregnancy (stretching back for centuries).  A neutral discussion of this influence has to cite prominent adherents and discuss the relationship of the idea to major political and legal ideas.  (And if you have specific editorial criticisms, those are a matter for editing discussions, not deletion.  Nor am I responsible for the original article.)  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The idea that pregnancy can only occur if the woman has experienced orgasm during intercourse is one that I have seen discussed in the context of the history of sexuality in Britain. It has been claimed that it was a common belief amongst women in the 19th century, and amongst some young women even at the end of the 20th. It has been used as evidence of inadequate education in sexual matters, though it could also be used to counter the idea that somehow it was only the liberated 1960s that 'discovered' the female orgasm at all. For the belief to have gained any currency amongst women, repressed Victorians with large families must have been presumed to have found their conjugal bedroom duties not wholly uncongenial. The underlying idea is certainly notable. Whether this is the right place for it though is another matter, since the underlying point there seems not to be the question of consent but the pleasure - to put it another way the woman may have consented but be disappointed in the event. --AJHingston (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your last objection is easily dealt with - we might devote a sentence or two to the belief that physical reactions constitute consent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been meaning for some months now to write an article on this subject so while I'm sad that my thunder has been stolen I'm also pleased that WP is covering the topic. Because it is a topic, the focus of several independent studies as well as the subject of discussion in many medical and legal books. Users calling for deletion here are making arguments that necessitate editing, not deletion. They could, for instance, very productively contribute to the article and assuage weight concerns by expanding the historical material which is already present. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Considering the recent interest of this article is in context to Akin's recent remarks and also to the recent reports of the GOP's adopted platform to oppose all abortion exceptions (including rape), it would seem that the important and notable issue is for the accredited science on rape pregnancy to be readily available in the relevant articles that address the effects of rape. I don't really know if that's best served in this article or if it should be merged into one of the other articles.  But since it is currently a very front and center matter of gynecological politics, it's really Wikipedia's duty to provide referenced hard facts on the matter for all who want to be informed.  And, if it's notable enough, topics or articles on rape effects denialism and rape stigma in general as a matter of history, culture and politics; for instance, when rape victims are blamed for their rape, or are subject of honor killings for having been raped.  It seems to me like a topic of rape will always have both medical and social notable dimensions. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Absent the immediate political context there seems to be a need for the topic of this article to be covered in an encyclopedic manner to document the scientific and medical evidence on the subject. The historical mythos on this topic and its prevalence means documenting the knowledge on this topic is of enduring social value. Mr Wave (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful article with plenty of medical and historical sources. Jokestress (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Outside Perspective - It appears that this has been made a focus of attack for !vote-stacking and WP:CANVASSING by members of WikiProject Conservatism. Just thought that any admin looking this over ought to be aware of that. Organized POV pushing is not fair or proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked briefly at WikiProject Conservatism and didn't see any canvassing. There was a notice about this discussion in a section on AFD, but that seems okay.  Was there something somewhere else?  (And which direction would the canvassing be arguing for, anyway?) --Lquilter (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Restucture to avoid the tendancy to stucture the content around stupid things that politicans say to avoid WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Keep - if it weren't a political and/or controversial issue, putting it into the rape article would be enough. But it is. If it were only Akin who said it, it could be moved into the article about his gaffe (or, if that is deleted, into his article). But others have. Here is a source that should be cited in the article. It discusses laws related to the intersection of rape and pregnancy in the U.S. (exception to no-public-funding laws; possible to adopt-out without father's consent; etc.). Savidan 03:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the article but place the emphasis on the information of scientific interest. I see no reason for more than a sentence or two on any given political occurrence, merely to show that misconceptions exist. bd2412  T 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep The fact that it took a political incident to notice that we didn't have an article on this subject is not relevant to whether or not we should have such an article. There's clear more than enough reliable sources, medical, historical, and contemporary to discuss this subject. We need to make clear what the scientific consensus is and be careful of giving undue weight to the idea that pregnancy can't result from rape, but that's an editorial issue rather than an issue for AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep. This article has undergone a dramatic change since I first voted, thanks to the hard work of several users. It's still not entirely perfect, but it's definitely good enough at this point to where I would say that it should be kept. The biggest problem with the original incarnation was that it was so non-neutral and unencyclopedically written that it really would have had to have been nuked and re-written. That's no longer an issue here and any further improvements to the page can be done as time goes by.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't see this dramatic improvement that you mention. The lead of the article says "the contrary belief that pregnancy can almost never result from rape was widespread for centuries", yet the article itself barely scratches the surface of that *very* controversial statement. There are just TWO actual references to historical texts that mention this in passing, and neither source explains how such a conclusion was made, nor does it explain how these texts were actually used in real cases. In other words, the only proof we're given that this was so prevalent is two very sketchy sources.
 * Looking at the rest of the article, it is a patchwork of things that seem to be trying to prove a point that the various authors weren't making. We have claims that pregnancy rates are the same as normal sex, claims that it is twice as much, and the longitudinal study mentions that "12% resulted in spontaneous abortion", which relates directly to the comment made by Todd Akin that prompted all this, as well as the supposed widespread historical belief, but no mention is made of any connection.
 * In addition, you still have a disproportionate level of text about boneheaded political comments in the article, yet there is no mention of what medical doctors or scientists that were in politics or Congress concurrently with those commenters had to say about the same issues. Nor do we have what the general medical opinion of such comments was. In short, we have some very fringe-sounding comments from people who generally have no real medical experience, we have no historical proof of how pregnancies from rapes were historically viewed or handled. (My guess is that most people were just generally ashamed by the whole thing and wished it would all go away.) It is still a pretty lousy article, (if you knew me, you would know what I am about to say is exceptional for me) and in general, this article is simply here in this condition because of people who are very politically biased, and not because it is worth anything in its present state. Wikipedians should know better than to make half-assed, poorly done, psuedo-scientific crap. But when politics gets in the way, this is what we end up with. -- Avanu (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have three secondary sources, including two professional historians, attesting to widespread medieval belief in the idea of the impossibility of rape pregnancy. Regarding the statistics, we have several reputable secondary sources saying that rape does not decrease the likelihood of pregnancy.  At least one source argues that it is more likely, but not all the sources agree on this point, and we report that.  Nor do all the statistics agree, in part because some of them are measuring different things or in different circumstances.  And we have several secondary sources attesting that belief in the improbability of rape pregnancy is prominent and recurring (whether or not it is widespread) in the pro-life movement, in addition to direct quotations of several such beliefs by prominent adherents.
 * Regarding quoting people who don't believe that rape-pregnancy is improbable, I'm not sure what you want here. We already cite mainstream scientific opinion as such, and already say that Akin's comments were widely condemned; quoting particular condemnations seems to be too much detail for this article.  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with rape if not for one idiotic comment, this wouldn't exist. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. It sounds like some of the earlier !voters might have been confused by the article needing cleanup that now has been at least partially completed. Subject is notable, written about, and not inherently a violation of WP:NOT or WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge(?quite unsure atm) Here it goes. First, many Foo and Bar-style articles are bogus. There are exceptions (like Simon and Garfunkel or Crash and Burn, where both together form the notable entity, or a sum which is far more notable than its components), but many Foo and Bar articles are less notable than Foo or Bar, sometimes utterly unencyclopedic, and should be moved to Foo#Bar or Bar#Foo. In this case, Rape#Pregnancy has been suggested, but I think the topic is wide enough to warrant more than one articles.
 * Rape about the crime itself, common legal criteria of rape (including the cases where consent exists but is irrelevant to jurisdiction), usual punishment in both current legislations and history, etc. IMO, that's what should be in Rape.
 * Effects and aftermath of rape is a related topic but relevant enough in itself, and might even be split into three: physical, psychological, and societal effects. IMO even these three are notable enough to serve as Main articles feeding into EaAoR. If that's the case, it is clear where Rape and pregnancy belongs: Physical effects of rape, and if it's not, it's Effects and aftermath of rape. The related political gaffe should be moved into Political gaffes (where it should get a 2 or 3-sentence mention) and Todd Akin but not into the Rape topics.
 * The topic should definitely not be deleted, as there have been many mentions that pregnancy after rape is less likely than after consentual sex (so there is correlation, it's just not impossible to get pregnant due to rape, nor unlikely enough to question a rape claim in court should it occur). - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete a blatantly obvious coatrack article make by a blatantly disruptive user. The idea that we are inundated with idiotic articles about US politics on a daily basis is bad enough without having them spill over into legitimate topics. Trusilver  08:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this article needs to be very, very closely monitored, it is a notable topic per SarekofVulcan below. Trusilver  04:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge statistical info in beginning, delete the rest as a coatrack. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge The historical background is important to have. Bob (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. It is certainly relevant and notable that people think you can't get pregnant from rape (the most ridiculous thing I've heard since "you can get pregnant from oral"). 83.70.170.48 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - politically motivated AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. This is a clearly notable topic which has not just arisen recently, contrary to some commenters' statements.  --George100 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this discussion result in "merge & redirect", Effects and aftermath of rape would be the most appropriate page to which to do so, as it is more specific to the subject than the broader Rape article.--JayJasper (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article is already far too long to merge in its entirety into Effects and aftermath of rape, even if all mention of the recent Akin controversy (currently just a few percent of the article) were deleted. Could people suggesting Merge be more specific in what they would delete in order to perform a merge? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the initiation of the article may have been provoked by the Todd Akin controversy, the statistical, medical, ethical, and political issues surrounding this topic are worth covering, and those sections are well referenced. Only a small part of the article covers the Akin stuff, so the article is hardly a coatrack. We really ought to have had an article on the topic even before the controversy broke out. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - regardless of what prompted this article, this is exactly the sort of information that our core readership - students - are looking for. Far too long to merge into anything, it is also clearly notable, based on the many significant citations. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The scientific, political, and cultural notability of the topic are proved by the current references, which also provide good information. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, after expansion of material from Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy (Which is also going under AFD) and adding more viewpoints on the issue. Pregnancy and rape is an important social issue, and clearly a notable topic. The fact that there have been laws passed that deal with unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape (regardless if the laws are in favor or against the victim) shows that its notable, and goes beyond just the rape aspect (as some "merge" !votes have suggested).  The Todd Akin comments article provides some good details that should be here (not there, that article should be merged/transwiki to Wikinews) and I'm sure there are plenty of other viewpoints to create a balanced article here. The coatrack issues are a concern but I believe that that can be balanced out, and thus does not merit deletion here. --M ASEM  (t) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about the laws -- we do have specific legal status given to pregnancy resulting from rape which is another strong cue for notability. --Lquilter (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Certainly a pertinent subject for any modern encyclopedia. —  C M B J   03:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - as per Bearian. This is exactly the kind of neutral, unbiased information that can be difficult to find, especially for young people. There is a long history of misunderstanding and misinformation on this topic -- in medieval England and in 19th century America, rape charges were regularly dismissed as unfounded if the woman turned out to be pregnant, based on the belief that women could not become pregnant from rape. Today, one in five Americans still believe this is true. This article is necessary and useful. Sue Gardner (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction Actually in the 19th century US case, the rape charge was not dismissed; the court found that the claim that "pregnancy can't result from rape" was invalid. (The man was sentenced to be castrated but that was never carried out.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Mr. Vernon, good for you :-) -- you read the citation more carefully than I did. Even so, I think the point stands: the idea that rape can't result in pregnancy has a long history, and people still are confused about whether it's true. Which makes the article important & useful. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the far better solution than the junk @ Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy. If you wanna write about this, make it general enough so that it remains relevant long after Akin's stupidity is forgotten. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is a clearly valid standalone topic that can be referenced from subsections in both the Rape and Pregnancy articles as a "main article", and also the right place to deal with the in-depth refutation of the (apparently disturbingly widespread) pseudoscientific beliefs about this, and examination of the scientific evidence for the even more unpleasant state of affairs that exists in reality, where the rate of conception, far from being zero, is actually significantly higher than normal. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Bearian, Masem, Sue, Anome, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Vandenberg. Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this article obviously attracts a lot of attention and an article would be a good help to expand wikipedia's coverage to both topics, specifically rape, pregnancy, and their intersection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this seem to be some "aftershock" of the Todd Akin story. However..seems notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - if you're going to weigh in here, please don't do 'the lazy vote' where you say "Keep per UserX" or "Delete per UserY". If you have a legitimate rationale for the debate, write it in and explain *your own* position. It might be strikingly similar to another person's viewpoint, but its really lame to just say "I like what Billy likes". If I read Khazar2's rationale above, I then have to go to John Vandenberg's rationale above it, then I have to go to Bearian, Masem, Sue, Anome and read those and then try and understand how John Vandenberg interpreted this. If you have an argument for or against a deletion discussion, focus first on the deletion rationale, then formulate your own response. Don't just jump on a bandwagon. Its intellectually lazy. -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is that there are many very good arguments here that are well articulated and persuasive, and I support their statement entirely. You need to counter their arguments. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Because of the Todd Akin story and persistent ignorance on this topic that has been around long before that, like a NC lawmaker saying that raped women cannot become pregnant back in the 90's, and people who think women have to orgasm to get pregnant, we need this article. A woman told me that she didn't think it was possible for a woman to get pregnant unless she enjoyed the experience.  Apparently, she was confusing male reproduction with female reproduction, since orgasm is required for the man to cause pregnancy.  However, orgasm, while pleasurable for the woman, is not required for pregnancy to occur.  If the sperm cells reach the egg cell(s), pregnancy occurs.  As for "forcible rape" comments, they don't belong in an abortion discussion, but under statutory "rape" discussion, since most statutory "rape" is not actual rape.  Both parties want it and there is no violence, just a law patronizing little girls or boys and telling them they are too young and punishing those who give into them.  And most of those times, it involves teenagers who have had puberty.  So the term statutory rape is an insult to women who were beaten nearly to death and then raped.  And young people can be forcibly raped, so letting the perps plead to a statutory offense (underage sex without violence) is demeaning to them.66.110.251.145 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is right that there are two logically distinct things here. One is the question of the significance of a woman's sexual pleasure, and specifically orgasm, in becoming pregnant. Before modern medical science, and in particular microscopes, it is understandable that the idea grew up that there was a process in women analogous to male orgasm/ejaculation. We know better now, but it is possible to hypothesise mechanisms by which orgasm and associated events might facilitate fertilisation, even though their absence clearly cannot prevent it altogether, and they should be discussed in the light of current scientific evidence as well as the historical interpretation. But as pointed out, rape is something different, and irrespective of whether the willingness to engage in intercourse and her biological responses might lower a woman's defences against pregnancy, there might still be the absence of a full, informed and lawful consent and it would still be rape. I refrained from an !vote above not because I do not think these issues belong in WP but because a portmanteau article is not necessarily the best way (though it might be). --AJHingston (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, by law, and even by many dictionary definitions, statutory rape is rape. It's rape for solid reasons that are not at all patronizing, or insulting to women who have been physically forced to engage in sexual activity. A 10-year-old girl who has hit puberty, for example, is vastly mentally and physically different than a 16-year-old girl/complete biological woman. You act like "real rape" is only defined by physical force. I see that's what you classify as "legitimate rape." But you'd do well to read up on the other definitions of rape and why they apply. And while statutory rape usually concerns sexual activity with pubescent and postpubescents, your "Both parties want it and there is no violence, just a law patronizing little girls or boys and telling them they are too young and punishing those who give into them." commentary sounds just like what pedophiles (those with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents) say. Give into them? Seriously? It's usually the legal or older legal adult that presses for the sexual activity. Your comment is an insult to people who experienced statutory rape and state that they were traumatized by it, whether because of the sex and legal matters that followed or just one or the other (since it can happen without anyone but the victim knowing about it).


 * And, AJHingston, what do you mean by a "portmanteau article"? See the article Portmanteau? So what does portmanteau have to do with this article?

108.60.139.170 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely that it seems to be combining diffferent things. The she could not have got pregant unless she was enjoying it, if she was enjoying it that much it could not have been rape line of argument lies I think behind much of the historical evidence, at least. Dealing with that alone requires so much unpacking that to concentrate on just one or two elements of the topic will do the subject an injustice, to cover everything will require reference to many things which are best dealt with in other articles. I am sure a good article could be made, but with so many fingers in the pie I am not confident it will be. --AJHingston (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are a significant number of people who are being misled by politicians about this issue. That one "can't get pregnant from rape" is a GOP meme being spread widely, and the press has covered this extensively. It's thus very notable and qualifies for its own article. It's also related to the GOP War on women and the Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy, but with this size it would become a weight violation in those articles. Here it can get the coverage it needs and can be wikilinked to from those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was a GOP 'meme' spread widely, then it wouldn't have caused such a fuss among both parties and the public when Todd Akin said what he said. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it is widespread among a certain group, as is amply demonstrated by the sources (e.g. five major pro-life groups are cited for statements supporting claims that rape inhibits pregnancy) and is also pointed out by several of the secondary sources, doesn't mean that the fact of this belief is well known to the general public. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I bet that isn't quite what those groups said. Even Todd Akin did not say "can't get pregnant from rape". He actually said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" and "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". The first part of that comment is his personal opinion based supposedly on what other people have told him. The second part is actually a fact, depending on how you interpret what he said. Pregnancy is often terminated by the female body based on many factors, including stress. Since Akin gave no particulars, we can't say unequivocally what he meant or how much real understanding he has, but to categorically rule out his statement as unequivocally false is simply bias at work. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the groups say that pregnancy from rape is impossible ("inhibit" in English can mean to merely retard or impede rather than to 100% prevent), nor does the article claim that they do. They just argue that it is very rare because of some biological process that supposedly acts to impede pregnancy during forcible rape compared to intercourse without trauma.  This is exactly the claim (which contradicts the current scientific consensus) that Akin promulgated.  (And you can justly come under fire for uncritically repeating a loopy claim, even if you attribute it to someone else, if you appear to give the claim more credence than it deserves.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Numerous reliable sources have significant coverage of this topic, satisfying WP:N. The fact that a politician torpedoed his campaign by vocalizing a long-standing myth in no way justifies keeping such an article out of the encyclopedia, which has a mission of providing accurate information about important topics. The topic has a history going back hundreds of years, with British legal documents from past centuries asserting the impossibility of rape resulting in pregnancy. If a foolish politician asserted that evolution is impossible, bats are birds, whales are fish, and pi is exactly equal to three, that would not justify removing related articles from the encyclopedia. The topic is notable and encyclopedic, as it was before this political season, and as it will be after it. Edison (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep When I first saw this article, my first impulse was to merge it into Effects and aftermath of rape. The article was obviously driven more by politics than a desire to build a better encyclopedia, and that disturbs me deeply. Putting that aside, though, I realized it is a pretty well written article, a worthy topic, and large enough to merit its own article. So, net positive, the encyclopedia is improved, even if I disagree with the motivations behind the article. -- Ja Ga  talk 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Since even now stupid politicians make comments about this, the article should be kept. There is enough valid referenced content for it to exist on its own.   D r e a m Focus  18:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There have been real scientific research on this specific subject. Maybe it's getting a lot of pageviews because the readers heard what a politician said about it. Good, now drop the politics and show them what biologists and MDs have learned about it. Kilopi (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the argument has been traced back to medieval times and properly sourced, so we just need to beware against COATRACKing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep . I wouldn't have imagined--if I'd even given it any thought--that such an article would even be necessary, but a little reading of recent news stories from the US indicates that this is a badly needed factual source. That it makes American right-wingers embarrassed is their own problem, I reckon. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously, we should be careful that the article doesn't become a coatrack, but that doesn't change the fact that the topic itself is notable. And the scientific info on the subject can certainly be expanded. There's years of study on this topic (sadly). Silver  seren C 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is definitely not an appropriate page title; if kept without radical changes, it should be moved to Rape and pregnancy.  Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pregnancy from rape" (the current title) is the more appropriate and descriptive title. "Rape and pregnancy" (the original title that this AfD was posted under) is simply a conjunction, and could refer to rape during pregnancy as well as rape causing pregnancy.  We're only interested in rape causing pregnancy, i.e., "pregnancy from rape". --Lquilter (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the pointer. I came across this AFD from WP:ANI, and since I wasn't interested in voting to keep or delete, I hadn't looked at the article.  Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The editor proposing deletion correctly notes this article has two parts for the scientific and political controversies. That is not reason enough to merge one part into Rape (which should contain a summary of and link to this article) and ditch the other part. He also states, "we don't have an article listing all the 9/11 'Truthers', for instance, and both views are equally 'supported' by scientific evidence." which itself is controversial and unsupported and cannot be used, therefore, to conclude anything, except perhaps that we need an article similar to this one on 9/11 Truthers which exists. There are, and will continue to be, issues that have both scientific and political components. Both can and should be represented fairly and separately in the same article if not too long. -74.162.150.244 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic in its own right.  J N  466  19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;This topic is clearly notable independently of the topic of rape itself as the sources now in the article show. If anything good comes from the whole Todd Akin mess, this will be it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, unquestionably a notable subject, and it does have both scientific and political aspects, so the article should cover both. I don't particularly like the title but that can be discussed and improved.  Neutron (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and a reasonable spin-off of the article on rape. Obviously, this focuses way too much on the political aspects, but that can be remedied through editing.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - even if Todd Akin had never said anything, this would still be a notable topic in its own right which we should have an article on. Can someone SNOW close this please? Robofish (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I count about 14 delete votes, nearly all at the beginning of the discussion. There aee a lot of keep votes coming now, but I think the ratio of keep to delete isnt high enough for a snow keep close three days before the scheduled end.   If some more of those deletes change their mind, the direction of the AFD would be clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm told that administrators only review the strength of the arguments and not the number of votes, but hell, this could be a load of who knows what. I know better than to believe that admins actually read these things carefully every time. Probably many times they actually do, but with a comment like the one above, I lose a lot of faith that things are done on the basis of good arguments. -- Avanu (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Our job is education. Even as a feminist for 50 odd years, I didn't know there were people who thought you couldn't get pregnant from rape. People need to know you can; and they need to know there are people who think you can't.  Do it in an NPOV way, obviously, but do it. CarolMooreDC 13:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, the topic is obviously notable and AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Problem - The article has gotten better, but it is still biased and patchworkish. Since the AfD started, it has been renamed several times, and people have thrown whatever they can at it in order to keep it from being deleted. @Carolmooredc, I am surprised that as a feminist for so long, you haven't heard all the completely weird ideas that teens come up with about what will and won't get you pregnant. A LOT of people have misconceptions about how pregnancy works, not just the religious right or conservative politicians. Todd Akin believes that the female body can respond against an unwanted pregnancy. Is this true? Yes, actually it is to some extent. Stress plays a role in pregnancy. But clearly, Todd Akin overstated what reality allows. The facts are that this stuff probably belongs under another article, like Pregnancy or Rape, yet people are so keen to see a political blow made that they've clamored for this article to stay put. Without question, the understanding of women's health issues over the centuries has been less than perfect. Men were in charge of medicine, and as such, they were naturally biased toward their own bodies. But medicine also once thought leeches were a really great way to help get rid of bad humors in our body. The point of view in this article is very biased and skewed toward proving a point, rather than seeing the bigger picture, which is simply that a lot of people can be damn ignorant a lot of the time. -- Avanu (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a Misconceptions about rape article that would include a big section on this, as one of the more notable outbreaks of misconceptions. I'm sure we've all heard of some that others haven't heard of. Let's not even start on aliens raping humans and all the people who think that's where their babies came from! CarolMooreDC 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This would work for me. FT2 (Talk 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd third CarolMooreDC's suggestion with the stipulation that we keep this article as well. —  C M B J   02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep SarahStierch (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as a pro-victim tone rather than a neutral tone thus disrupting WP:NPOV. And the timing of the creation of the article seems a little POV in itself. If kept it should keep to the science of the subject instead of to the opinion of politicians and people. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | Get Some!</b> 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up (no rename or rename to Misconceptions about rape both ok). Unlike the Todd Akin fork, this one actually is a legitimate encyclopedic topic and does have potential for a good article. AFD norms are to look at the article topic and whether that can sustain an article, rather than its origin or its need for improvement.
 * Topic is not inevitably or even obviously POV, and despite being prompted by the Akin controversy is not tied to him particularly;
 * Topic has been studied and of interest by medical and social researchers, as well as media and others, from a number of perspectives, so there is a wide range of sources and evidence of notability;
 * Topic has wide and enduring social impact and interest (for individuals, in laws and social structures, medicine and healthcare, police and support, and obviously politics, etc);
 * Topic is the subject of an enduring social myth, belief, or question (depending on your view) as evidenced by others above, and probably notable in its own right for this alone;
 * Topic is "stand alone", ie there is enough to be said specifically about pregnancy from rape so that it can legitimately sustain an article on its own, in more depth than the rape article could. For example it can cover not just various views and statistics, but many other factors such as law, abortion/rape rights worldwide, major past/present political debates and legal cases, clinical and social research, views of a wide range of interested parties, global information (not just US), etc;
 * No need to "controversy"-ize the title; it's a valid topic and does not need to be presented purely in terms of a US controversy. (Compare abortion for title validity). It goes a lot wider than that. We can provide an informative uncontroversial article on the whole issue of pregnancy from rape, based on factual cited evidence. Because a topic involves a controversy doesn't make it a controversy.
 * As a topic this can justify its own article. It is notable, enduring, encyclopedic, reliably citeable, verifiable, and very wide impact worldwide; it can draw on a very wide range of significant viewpoints including science, education, healthcare, and advocates; it makes sense as a stand-alone topic; and is capable of becoming good (even if not good right now). Cleanup and initial quality issues in some parts isn't a reason to delete. If it did become pure POV partisan junk we can AFD or restart in future, but I don't think that will happen. It's a high profile topic so if it's kept, it will get eyeballs once this AFD ends. FT2 (Talk 22:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment on (non)merging: I don't think we need to merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. That article is better centered on the effects or rape, leaving this one to focus on misconceptions about rape - a nice split of two distinct encyclopedic topics. Of course each overlaps a bit on the other, but it's still a good split. FT2 (Talk 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll hedge my vote a bit if we can agree on some improvements here and now. As the article stands currently, it is a bit of a mess. It is a patchwork, and while I'll agree that AfD is not for cleanup, turning this thing loose without some ground rules just means you're going to have the same arguments again at the article Talk page later. Can we agree on some places that need improvement in the article, and maybe hand those off as improvement directives if the article survives? It is also possible the title is part of the problem too (it has been changed several times already).
 * Keep Political figures chose to make this a topic and there should be a thorough exploration. heather walls (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important aspect of the War on Women. I'm in favor of continued maintenance of the article, and possible mergers.  Mcavic (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been thoroughly developed and moreover, will serve as a better home for the digressive content in the "Background" section of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy. Its significance goes far beyond the recent gaff. The fact that it was triggered by it is immaterial; every Wikipedia contribution on any topic is triggered by a contemporary interest of some kind, even if it's just personal interest, and if the gaffe inspires people to learn and contribute more about a topic of enduring social importance, all the better. Dcoetzee 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article covers an important topic, which clearly is and will be looked up, is sourced and relatively well developed, and also which is difficult to be reduced to a subsection in another article. Pundit | utter  12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of legitimate scientific inquiry regardless of any role in recent events. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel that the Misconceptions about rape title is a better one, but I think we can even do better. Also, I don't see a lot of balance in the article at present. It seems to go out of its way to say that it was universally believed that women could not produce a child as a result of rape. I am going to assume, perhaps wrongly, that our ancestors were not all quite so single minded on this opinion. Yet our article presents the idea that only recently we have become enlightened enough for a single person to realize this. I find this very hard to believe. -- Avanu (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we need better editing or wording - I already cited a US court case from the early 1800s where they dismissed the claim that women could not produce child in rape cases, and the manner of tone (which I'm of course reading into it) implies it wasn't exactly revolutionary to suggest as such at the time. (I wouldn't have mentioned this except someone else missed the context of my addition, so if someone wants to try to rephrase it, they are more than welcome to!) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Take that aspect (any imbalance) to the article's talk page anyway. 1/ the discussion is then visible long-term to other contributors, 2/ AFD really is only to decide keep/delete (+ variants). Quick comments on both replies: - New articles born of a single incident tend to be shadowed by that incident for a little a while; we don't need immediate perfection. It's topical, it'll get attention, people here who care will pick up on it anyway. @Avanu, look for reliable sources on that issue in past times, they will for sure exist. Wording such as "It was widely believed" or "the predominant belief was" or "Laws and religious views were largely that" will handle the fact we aren't saying everyone was like that (+ cite of course). Maybe add a history of views on rape subsection or article somewhere and link to it summary style for the historic background on views in this article? Not an easy write, but encyclopedic and worthwhile to document the major changes, exceptions, pivotal events, and evolutions, across cultures and time. (Though this is not relevant to AFD). FT2 (Talk 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to develop a compromise here that even the Delete votes can get behind. Crystal-ball impressions that "it might get better" aren't a good reason to Keep the article. Renaming or reworking it are valid alternatives to Deletion. But we could just as well delete the whole mess and simplify this. -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to favor keep based on it meeting the notability guidelines. I'm against such a rename, because it doesn't list all misconceptions about rape, only this one thing, which is enough for its own article.   D r e a m Focus  15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add, that the subject of rape-induced pregnancy itself is quite notable and not just the misconceptions about it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I rescind my barely thought out suggestion to rename it that! CarolMooreDC 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment At this point I'm pretty happy with the way the article has shaped up, big thanks again to everyone who chipped in. I normally don't withdraw my AfD if it looks like other people think the article should be deleted, even if I no longer think that is the case, but I'd like to know if anyone else who thought the article should be deleted in its earlier state have changed their mind.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was surprised to learn that this misconception has a very, very long history. It isn't notable just because of some idiot American pol. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/reproductive-science
 * We may not want to face this fact, but apparently a LOT of people hold this misconception. We have a lot of articles debunking stupid ideas. Should we not bother to have one on the Yeti because 'everybody knows' there isn't a Yeti? Risingrain (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should have a Yeti article even if virtually no one any more believed Yeti stories to be true, because Yeti stories (both sincere beliefs and fiction) were historically notable over a long period of time, as demonstrated by numerous reputable sources (and there are many similar examples on Wikipedia, such as Hollow Earth). The same WP:GNG apply here (both to the scientific investigations and to misconceptions); the beliefs of individual Wikipedians are irrelevant to our policy. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So... you're agreeing with me? Or...? Risingrain (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with your conclusion, but am suggesting that the argument is stronger than you imply. :-) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sourcing for this article is solid and the material presented is relevant.  In fact, there is so much material available that a sub-article on "Rape and pregnancy rate controversy" could possibly be branched off. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.