Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections


 * 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, without prejudice as to renaming the article. I ignored the technical fact that the nominator did not present a valid reason for deletion, as others subsequently have provided such reasons. I also ignored !votes based on irrelevant issues. For example, WP:CONSENSUS is an administrative/procedural principle; using it to keep or delete an article makes as much sense as relying on WP:IAR for it. The consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections
Related AfDs for this article (Todd Akin comment only article) - AfD 1: No consensus AfD2: The result was merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin, or such other articles as may be created in the future.:  

Related AfDs for this article (Richard Mourdock comment only article) - Delete and merge: 

Related Deletion Review for Richard Mourdock - Endorse deletion: 

Move discussion :(Discuss) – Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article. It might as well be titled List of things nasty Republicans said that offended people. A wider article on the election debates and media might contextualise this, but this is just always going to be a list of statements that made brief headlines in a partisan election cycle. We are not a partisan news aggregation.

Yes, I know it was suggested by another AFD. But that's a process matter, my problem is that we're committed to neutrality, and this article is not neutral (go on read the introduction) and there's not a hope it could ever be.Scott Mac 00:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * New Article, New AfD Just to clarify, there was an AfD on a completely different Article, a standalone Article solely on Todd Akin's comments. The result of that was that THAT Article, the sole topic of the AfD, could not continue to exist. It no longer exists, as per consensus, but its CONTENTS were to be merged several places. The Akin standalone AfD did not per se endorse THIS article nor mandate its creation, it merely said that, in addition to merging to the named, specific, articles, if an editor wanted to imminently start a new article that was entirely different from that one (and any autoconfirmed editor is free do do so at any time), they were free to also merge content there. The AfD closed on Nov 18, and later that day Casprings created this entirely new article. This NEW article is the sole topic of this AfD. Process issues do exist due to the improper move/merge subsequent to the AfD close, but those are technical issues only, and with the old Article's AfD, not this one. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading the previous AfD from which this was born, I am not seeing anywhere to validate this article which is clearly positioned as a page to attack. Most of the so called controversy are little more than attempts to tag the individual onto the Todd Akin comments.  Additionally, the "Overall Response" section is clearly Original Research, it even reads like a research paper.   Arzel (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is exactly the same sort of rubbish we saw with "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 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. Stalwart 111  01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also have the problem of editors tendentiously changing names during the AfD (as happened in the Mourdock controversy AfD), which confused the AfD process, and made conclusion difficult. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Not being neutral is not a reason to delete an article (WP:SUSCEPTIBLE), 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. Gobōnobō  + c 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be notable comments or reports WITHIN this article; virtually no political article does not have items that the press reports on, but it is highly doubtful that the TOPIC of THIS article is both notable and merits a standalone article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That assertion would seem to ignore the many sources used within the article that link the various rape and pregnancy related gaffes. The sources demonstrate a discrete topic that meets WP:N. These ongoing attempts to forum shop and Whac-A-Mole articles that don't adhere to the Fox News narrative bespeak a tendentious, battleground mentality that ill serves our readers. Gobōnobō  + c 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only connection is that partisans TRIED to tar any and all Republicans with the "just like Akin" brush. It worked exactly once.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A very bad rational for deleting the article is, "It will be really really hard to make it WP:NPOV. Not only does this clearly meet WP:N there is a clear WP:EFFECT of these events when taken together.  From the article itself:

The overall response to the multiple comments and controversies was negative, with many crediting them for Republican losses during the election. In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, an American political consultant and policy advisor, credited "offensive rape comments" with "costing Republicans two Senate seats". On the federal level, the controversies were cited as causing or contributing to the defeat of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Linda McMahon, Tom Smith and John Koster. However, Sen. Patty Murray, the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said "[The] offensive comments from Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did not decide this election. It was a result of hard work and critical strategic decisions over many months."

Many liberals credited the controversy with helping pro-choice political candidates. In an article in Salon, Joan Walsh wrote "suddenly Americans had to try to imagine how doctors or hospital administrators or law enforcement officials would decide what was 'legitimate rape,' as opposed to something else. Rape panels?" Conservative blog Hot Air linked Akin's remarks to a positive ten percent shift in US public opinion polls toward supporting legalizing abortion in all circumstances. Also, the multiple comments were credited for aiding in the re-election of President Barack Obama.

The comments also were credited with helping the President Obama win the women's vote. Karen Hughes, a former George W. Bush adviser, in an op-ed in Politico stated: "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'" According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. Comments from otherwise low profile candidates such as Rep. Todd Akin, may have cost Mitt Romney the election and also reinforced for some voters concerns that the GOP is out of touch with women.


 * So the argument is, we are going to delete the article, even when there is great evidence that it has WP:EFFECT? Moreover, some of that evidence comes from Republicans? I didn't even go into the change in pubic opinion to being more Pro-Choice, etc. This is a clear example of WP:CENSOR.  I do admit that getting a WP:POV article is hard.  I would even suggest making the article fully protected and allowing administrators to edit it would be a good idea.Casprings (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous two opinions have mirepresented the nomination entirely. I didn't nominate this because it is currently not neutral - I nominated it because it is inherently non-neutral. It cannot be fixed. A list of "controversies", organised by a partisan topic, is not a neutral criteria to write an article. We can record this in a wider ballanced article on election themes in this particular election - but you can't pick our a partisan topic and organise cherry-picked cases about it. The article needs deleted. What the fuck has censorship got to do with it. We remove partisan screeds, that's not censorship it is being an encyclopedia--Scott Mac 01:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point is, covering facts that happened and had impact and were discussed as a whole is not a "partisan screed". -- Cycl o pia talk  01:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts. If the language is WP:NPOV, then edit the article. No one wants an article that is WP:POV.Casprings (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover,this isn't cherry picking. It was a clear and notable set of events that had an WP:EFFECT.Casprings (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was no effect. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:EFFECT is strictly to be used as a guide for an EVENT. The event of Akin's blunder is both on the Akin and Campaign articles, the event of Mourdock's statement is on both the Mourdock and campaign articles, and both are on the War on Women article, which is SUPPOSED to be about the Democrat national initiative to generate these wedge issues. You are using a guideline about a singular event, and applying it to a thesis-based article. The actual events are covered in the context of the Articles where they had effect, those mentioned above. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

delete because "There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article" Leng T&#39;che (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Leng T&#39;che (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep and trout nominator.
 * From a process point of view: This is a deliberate attempt to revert the consensus of a previous AFD closed a few days ago with a new AFD -that is, basically forum shopping.
 * As for the article merits, the topic is obviously notable, with 124 references. One can understand the synthesis concern above by Stalwart, but it overlooks the crucial fact that the remarks have also been descrived all together by sources: see the last section in the article. This strongly indicates that the episodes can be legitimately put together in a single article.
 * The NPOV concern is naive: what is POV about this article subject? The existence of the controversies and their impact as a single phenomenon is well established by sources. It's not a POV that it happened that Republicans indeed said these things and that they sparkled a wide debate, in US and elsewhere (I'm European and this stuff was quite well covered here too). If there are specific problems with the content (which is entirely possible), our policy asks us to solve it by editing, not deletion. Saying "this can't be neutral" appears nonsensical. If figures within a political party stir controversy, the POV thing (in the larger sense of systemic bias) would be not covering it. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take your trouts and assumption of bad faith elsewhere, particularly when it is simply and demonstrably wrong. I didn't participate in that debate, so I'm hardly forum shopping. I believe this article should not exist - the correct forum to raise that is precisely here. Oh, the second bit it nonsense too. Notability is neither here nor there, since I didn't raise it. Anyway "keep it has lots of references" isn't valid. Calling the nomination "nonsense" won't fly either - but we do need to debate that issue. Systemic bias is a crap argument - we've got lots of articles on the election (more on US election than on any other) so not having this can't possibly be a bias. The point remains, this is a "let's collate (original research by definition) all the things one side said on this topic that got mentioned by their opponents and the media in an election cycle". I'm not suggesting that some of the information can't be kept (it will be on the bios of the candidates) or mention can't be made of it in a general article - just that this isn't a neutral way of doing it.--Scott Mac 01:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You couldn't have misrepresented my !vote anymore -well, I guess it's my fault if I'm not clear. Let me explain:
 * I didn't participate in that debate, so I'm hardly forum shopping. - That is true, and I used the incorrect expression with "forum shopping". I did assume no bad faith at all -just poor form. It's disruptive to try to overturn a consensus that has been settled in a quite participated AFD discussion after just a few days. If consensus didn't want that article, it would have been apparent there too. Whatever you call it, it looks to me still like trying to discuss again and again until a result is got. You may disagree.
 * Notability is neither here nor there, since I didn't raise it. - Yes, you didn't. Still, it's better to be clear about that.
 * Calling the nomination "nonsense" won't fly either - I explained why I find it nonsensical.
 * Systemic bias is a crap argument - we've got lots of articles on the election ... so not having this can't possibly be a bias. - Well, first of all systemic bias is surely not my main argument up there -it's just to show that deleting this would be paradoxically more POV than keeping it. But let's expand this. Having "lots of articles" on the election means nothing. I am talking of this specific and massively notable and massively impacting controversy. Choosing not to cover it despite its impact and discussion in sources skews our coverage of the election, of the Republican party and of political debate of US in general. No matter how many articles you have, still it skews it.
 * The point remains, this is a "let's collate (original research by definition)" - The point remains that this is not OR because sources discuss these things in general. If they didn't at all, if only single episodes were discussed, I could agree with you (but well, then we could reorganize it as a list). But they did. The existence of a general controversy about this is fact, reported by sources, and therefore we ought to cover it. -- Cycl o pia talk  02:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not questions WP:Good Faith. However, your stated reason does not really fit well as a reason for deletion.  From,  WP:DEL-REASON:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
 * Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
 * Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * The policy does state that the list isn't limited to these. However, if the article is WP:POV, then the solution is to get to work and make it not POVCasprings (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and ask all who have voted to delete based upon WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to come up with a good reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * rename to Crap the media fed to the tabloid hungry partisans during the 2012 election season and merge all the other shitty articles of the like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. 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 WP:EFFECT. 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. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree, and an attempt to paint everyone who argues for deletion here as a pro-Republican censor-bot is not particularly helpful. For the record, I'm Australian and couldn't care less about your over-hyped election. These comments (individually) might have been identified by plenty of sources and the impact each individual comment had on each individual race might even have been verified. But bringing them all together with only one or two (not very good) sources to suggest there was a wider impact as a result of collectively interpreted comments is, in my opinion, synthesis. Yes, each specific example is verified and the impact of some specific examples on their respective candidates has also received coverage. But the concept being put forward in this article is that the comments collectively were all so similar that they can be listed as one "idea" and that some broad electoral outcome can be ascribed to them collectively. Some have opined as much but not nearly enough to give this synthesised concept verifiable credibility, in my opinion. Stalwart 111  03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is far more then one or two sources that suggest that the comments had a national effect. While that section needs to be expanded, it will be easy to do so.  If the national effect is there (or even suggested to be there by many, many WP:RS), then it is WP:N, even if the election was over hyped.  Casprings (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely that would make it notable. I'm just not seeing those reliable sources right now. There are four suggested sources in the quote-box-thingy you added above. One is from a liberal PAC blog (self-described as such). Another is a op-ed piece from a Democrat attacking Republicans (shock!) while another is direct coverage of that op-ed piece and not much else. The other is another op-ed from Karl Rove. Op-eds aren't the worst thing in the world but I don't think they should be confused with editor-over-sighted "news" content. There's not much "analysis" - just opinion about what might have caused what. Most of it is pretty speculative - not the stuff of encyclopaedic verifiability in my opinion. I'm just uncomfortable with basing a whole article on material like that while a list of "examples" is synthed together behind it. But show me a couple of good analytical sources that ascribe a wider electoral impact on those collective comments and it'll be a different story. Stalwart 111  03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is one area of the article that needs expanding. I will work on it during the coming days.  I updated the blue box thingy with some more sources.  However, the sources are plenty, it is just putting them together. (You are welcome to help)  The op-eds are significant because they come from well known Republicans that are well versed in elections. Casprings (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that simply googling the term "rape comments" provides hundreds of WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but in my opinion, many of the "sources" added above are not particularly good. One is actually broadly based on a question and queries whether what is suggested in this article actually happened at all. Not a great source for verifying the statement - "It happened". Another starts by describing the Republican Party as "Team Rape". Maybe it's just me, but I can't see any way such a source could be considered reliable as a source of factual information. Others describe the "issue" (usually with reference to only one or two particular incidents or comments) as being relevant to certain outcomes but only as one of a number of such relevant issues. Certainly not in a way that would justify a standalone article here. They do not cover the instances listed in the article collectively as a group, except in very broad terms. I suppose my issue (when you get down to it) is that Wikipedia is basically the only place where you can find this list, discussed in this way with this impact ascribed to it and in a manner than suggests it is verifiable fact. That's a big WP:OR concern for me. Stalwart 111  04:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In your delete vote you state, "Election-prompted, non-NPOV, political attack articles designed to synth together a bunch of notionally related things. We would need far more of 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". I have just added more sources like the NBC news source the WP:EFFECT. How many more would you like to see?Casprings (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the only part of my comment you missed was the first sentence where I talked about Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy - the other election-related synth article you created and then re-named during the AFD. As was the case then, you seem to be missing my point. The sources you continue to claim support your WP:OR essay do not. Coverage of a single instance or even two or three instances cannot be extrapolated out to verify the theory that all such instances are the inherently similar and that collectively they had x electoral impact. Again, Wikipedia is now the only place where you can find this "information", framed the way you have framed it. You have collected a bunch of disparate sources about a bunch of different issues and come to your own conclusion that they had a broad, national electoral impact. For that to fly you need reliable sources that discuss a similarly broad group of generally the same incidents along with analysis that comes to the same conclusion you have. In amongst the vast list of "sources" you provided, I found one that came close. Your citation of WP:EFFECT is either mischievous or naive, I think. WP:EFFECT is about whether an event has a long-term impact. No one is questioning (especially in cases where the person has gone on to lose their particular election) that some of these comments had a lasting (electoral) effect in specific cases and the sources back that up in most specific cases. But what you're suggesting is that collectively, they had a national effect, such that they could be considered collectively to be "one event" that needs to be covered in one article here. To verify that claim (I think), you need multiple reliable sources that come to the same analytical conclusion as you. Not about one or two or three specific incidents and their specific impact but about the group of incidents and their collective impact. Otherwise we just create a giant POV Frankenstein's monster. The sources you have provided might be suitable for verifying specific incidents but we still need sources to verify the collective conclusion drawn by the article in question. Stalwart 111  22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't WP:OR to point out that multiple WP:RS have discussed these events together nor is it WP:OR to point out that multiple sources have suggested that the events would have WP:EFFECT. I think no matter how well it is cited nor how well it is backed up by policy, I think this is a case WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Casprings (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a deliberately misleading "dumbing-down" of my well-explained position. If I simply didn't like it, I would have said, "I don't like it". In actual fact, I said I didn't care about your election or your politics. I care that creating articles like this sets a precedent for creating articles in which we draw our own conclusions based on sources that do not draw the same conclusions. I regularly "change my mind" at AFD (check my extensive contributions here) and am entirely open to being convinced. In actual fact, I was quite explicit about the sorts of sources I would need to see to be convinced. Instead, you link-spammed more of the same and tried to argue I should be convinced by them. Multiple WP:RS have discussed some of these incidents together and some WP:RS have theorised that specific incidents have had a specific effect in specific cases. But few WP:RS have discussed all (or at least most) of these incidents and theorised they have had a collective effect. But the latter is the conclusion drawn by the article. If that conclusion can be verified by reliable sources then that's great and I'll happily change my "vote". Stalwart 111  23:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, many WP:RS have "theorized that these comments have had an effect. You have Karl Rove writing that it had an effect in the WSJ, here.  You have Karen Hughes writing the same, here.  Given the context (Something WP:RS points to) that is essential.  Moreover, you have multiple media sources talking about these comments.   Moreover, multiple sources talk about at least the Akin and Mourdock remarks having a national effect.  While some of the lesser knowns are not mentioned as much, source after source will at least mention Akin and Mourdock.  The New Yorker, here.  Salon, here.  The Guardian, here.  I could continue.  The events of the multiple comments are often mentioned and often linked together.  Certainly the Akin and Mourdock comments are the more important comments, but the others are also linked.  For example, in The Week, they are linked here.  For someone like Rivard, he is also linked to Mourdock and Akin.  In the Huff post, that can be found, here. (Huff Post is a WP:RS).  I have no problem with your view.  However, your standard to prove that this was a theme during the US election and it had WP:EFFECT on the election seems to be unreasonable high. Casprings (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think it is "unreasonably high" at all. The article asserts a conclusion based on the supposed collective impact of a number of disparate events linked by a similar theme (rape). In my view, we need for reliable sources to have asserted the same conclusion before it can be included in an article (let alone as the main premise of an article) here at WP. I've already given my comments on those two opinion-editorial pieces. But it's worth pointing out that the analysis subsequently used to verify a conclusion here is limited to (I'm quoting) - "The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments...". That is the extent of the "analysis" in that source. I've made my point (several times) and you've responded (several times) by pointing to the same sources with which I have concerns. For fear of turning this into a bludgeon-fest, I'm going to leave it at that. If you find a couple of sources that actually draw the same conclusion as you then feel free to post them here. Stalwart 111  00:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE WP:PA problem This allegation of forum-shopping by the nominator is both an egregious personal attack, and a logical impossibility. This article was created less than a week ago, and has never been the subject of any administrative challenge EXCEPT this one and only AfD. Please strike the offending comment. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and, as said above, trout nominator for forum-shopping. WP:DONTLIKEIT 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. -- The Anome (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As the material is a conglomeration of all sorts of issues, the linking of them is improper from the git-go. Each individual person with a "controversy" has a separate issue - they are not linked intrinsically for sure, and so each individual "controversy" belongs in the proper BLP. By adding them all together as though they were related, a sort of SYNTH is created which is contrary to Wikipedia goals. Collect (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT for all the talk about these issues affecting the election. In 2008 Obama won the women vote 56% to 43%. In 2012 Obama won the women vote 55% to 44%. So how do the keepers explain that Obama lost women in 2012? I know the popular meme that some editors are trying to use here is that the Akin comment and a couple of others helped Romney lose the election. Unfortunately for that to be true one would expect Obama to have improved on the Women vote, but the statistics simply do not back that up. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A few possible responses to that. A) It's not my business to analyze the numbers, because I'm not a source. B) The very source you linked states that the gender gap in this election, especially in influential swing states, was bigger than in the last. What a larger gender gap means is that there was a greater percentage difference between men and women. If the percentage of women is about the same but the gender gap is larger, that means a smaller percentage of men voted for Obama in this election. C) Reliable sources state that these issues helped Democrats in the election, and your personal theorizing about what "one would expect" to happen is just that - personal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gender gap is seperate from proportion of women. You are correct that the gender gap was greater, but that is because Romeny recieved more men relative to the women that Obama lost in the previous election, thus the total gap for both was larger.  However, the fact is that Obama recieved a smaller proportion of women in 2012 than in 2008.  Arzel (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So long mr. WP:EFFECT From the Atlantic Arzel (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Let's start with one of the biggest story lines of 2012: that the gender gap was an epic problem for Romney and the GOP in general. It started when the Republican primaries featured conversations about the morality of birth control, which ended up inspiring a tidal wave of women to push Obama over the top. When everything was tallied from 2012 this turned out not to be true. This year's 11-point margin was big, but it wasn't bigger than it was four years ago. According to the exit polls, the margin was actually bigger in 2008—13 percentage points. Obama won women 56 percent to 43 percent in 2008. He won them 55 percent to 44 percent on Tuesday.


 * Arzel, you don't know what would have happened without these comments: thus you can't deduce anything, in both directions, from these numbers. In other words, you don't have a control experiment. 2008 is not a valid control experiment because the circumstances were different, the opponent was different and there were not 4 years of government before. It is well possible that the gender gap would have been even smaller without these comments. We don't know. But no sane person is arguing that we have scientific proof of an objective effect in the election results. What we have is proof of a widespread social and political debate on the subject, and that's all we care and need. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are claiming there was an effect without any statistics to back up your claim. I have provided statistics that show it to be unlikely.  All you have is a bunch of Liberals spouting their opinions claiming that it must have made a difference without any basis in reality.  Arzel (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I never claimed there is proof of an effect on the number of votes, and your statistics conversely proves nothing, in both senses (it doesn't prove an effect, it doesn't prove it didn't). The "bunch of Liberals spouting their opinions" is the effect: it stirred a notable debate, in US and elsewhere.-- Cycl o pia talk  17:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know it was raining somewhere today in the world as well, ie a bunch of liberals spouting their opinion is hardly notable. You may not have claimed that this had an effect on the election, but that is the reason being given by some.  The statistic I have shown, show that their is no evidence of that. Arzel (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Cyclopia has made a very telling and correct admission; that the whole of the alleged "notability" or certification that these fairly disparate and unconnectable election season quotes are controversies comes mainly from partisan sources, and that the flurry in the echo chamber is the argument, not that anything in the article had effect beyond two elections, which already have articles that include the mis-statements. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic article you cite is faulty. The vote count isn't yet completed, so we don't yet know the final vote tally. That article cites exit polling, which is highly flawed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the nominator has not identified a reason for deletion rooted in Wikipedia's deletion policy. The topic is clearly notable and the nominator is not even attempting to argue that it isn't.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep no valid reason for deletion offered. On the other hand I don't think there is too much to discuss here about notability of the topic, verifiability, reliability of the sources, persistence of the coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - 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. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete synthesis as an attempt to connect independent events. Each of the mentioned people has an individual article and additionally all those issues can be sufficiently treated as part of the election articles that also exist. Hekerui (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable theme in 2012 US politics, much commented upon in national and international press. Handily meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this patchwork of political, non-neutral, unencyclopedic text. -- No  unique  names  16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:UNENCYC. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Women's issues in the 2012 United States elections or Controversies around women's issues in the 2012 United States elections or something even more neutral-sounding. The topics in the article are all related; they attracted a lot of commentary in reliable sources; they were grouped together by many commentators; and susceptibility to bias isn't grounds for deletion.  If a bunch of unrelated topics were being grouped together that would be inadmissible; if notable controversies were being excluded to give a biased picture then that would be wrong though perhaps not grounds for deletion; but to cover controversies around women's issues in a single article is reasonable. Please add controversies involving Democrats if there are any important ones. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * War on Women is the article on the Democrat's wedge issue campaign, and both the AfDs mentioned suggested that any general coordination with National politics be merged into, or was already more appropriately covered there. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously notable and relevant and of import. CarolMooreDC 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - 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, don't kick a dead horse. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Bearian, the discussion in question was more related to moving an obviously non-NPOV titled article to a slightly less POV title. It was opened and closed by the same editor who created the article. That's not a problem, per se, but I think it indicates how few people were involved. The AFD of the original article occurred before the election which is the focus of this article. This article is (obviously) very different to the original. Besides which, it closed as no consensus. So I think it's a little disingenuous to dismiss a current AFD on the basis of a different AFD, conducted before the event in the article title for an article with a different focus. Stalwart 111  23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "all"????, Bearian. This was not a "consensus" target of anything. There are two controversies, both have been determined not to warrant standalone articles, and were to be deleted. ONE article's AfD mentioned the possibility that, if a new Article (not then named or created) wanted to use content, that was OK, (but obviously outside the topic of that AfD). Not a single AfD has mentioned this Article by name, nor has this article ever been the subject of an AfD before. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:Stalwart111; there are two AfDs of the Todd Akin article, an entirely separate article, and the relevant one mandated THAT article be Deleted and some content merged to other Articles. Casprings opened a "Move/Rename" discussion on the Talk page in the middle of the AfD, when it was apparent that consensus was that THAT article was to be deleted. After the close of the AfD (Delete and Merge), and after the merge templates had been attached to the appropriate targets, Casprings unilaterally moved the Todd Akin article to an entirely new Article, this one, contrary to the AfD consensus. In addition, the Todd Akin article Talk page, which was only relevant to the old, different, and supposed-to-be-deleted Todd Akin-only Article, was also moved to the new Article, which was created November 18, a highly disruptive action. After the move, which actually was not in accordance with any consensus (Casprings claimed only that a consensus was "beginning" to develop), nor according to the rules of a move request (it was labeled Bold), which cannot be opened and closed by the same editor. AFTER the move, after complaints that a move (that messed up the AfD's delete) also circumvented and confused the Move request discussion (even though that discussion should have been null and void due to deletion), since a move had been done and the MR was still open, Casprings then changed the RfC/MR and deleted the merge headers that were not to be altered until the merges were done. Another name change was immediately proposed by Casprings to change the name that Casprings had just changed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, very similar things happened with Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy - another "controversy" article. Article created - AFD started - article renamed - AFD confused. Then there are all sorts of claims of previous "consensus" when consensus was actually about something else or those !voting at the beginning of the AFD were casting a !vote about a different article altogether. The claim that this article is the result of a previous consensus is plainly wrong. The whole muddy the waters tactic is clearly disruptive, contrary to consensus-building and fairly bad faith to boot. Unfortunately, it's having the desired effect - people are voting "keep" on the basis of a prior "consensus" because they can't work out what actually happened or how this article came to be. Stalwart 111  04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Casprings also pulled the same cr!$R&#p on the Richard Mourdock controversy article, resulting in confusion, and no positive outcome, but the consensus still ended up resulting in Delete.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Restoring comment deleted by Casprings--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wanted the article to be treated as a new AfD, you would of not added the New Article, New AfD note at the beginning of the discussion. Not only is it worded in a non-neutral matter, it makes most editors go, "what the hell."  Once added, I felt editors should see clearly and transparently the pervious discussions.  Allow them to decide.  Claims I didn't act in good faith should be taken elsewhere. Casprings (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT !votes above. Consensus is that it's notable. Get over it. Go   Phightins  !  00:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking part of my !vote. Sorry, that was fairly crass. Go   Phightins  !  01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have no policy-based reason for keeping it, but just saw a bunch of other "keeps" and figured you would add one? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My policy based reason would be WP:CONSENSUS, which states that consensus is the "primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia" and WP:TALKEDABOUTIT which states that when there's recent consensus on something, it's disruptive to bring it up again. I believe in the process and the system; I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not the article is kept, but I do believe strongly in the pillars of Wikipedia, from which consensus stems. Therefore, my policy based reason would be that we've already reached consensus on this, so it's not worth re-legislating. Go   Phightins  !  05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't any consensus that this AfD brings up "again". Consensus that a Todd Akin controversy Article had to be deleted suggests that this one should be as well, as does the Richard Mourdock controversy article deletion, but neither is absolutely determinative, since this Article is the joining of two Articles that by consensus needed to be deleted. No consensus that this new Article should or should not exist on WP has been reached, though the fact that it is made up of deleted Articles is close to satisfying grounds for Speedy Delete. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable subject, good coverage, and a NPOV title. Dimadick (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Published sources make so notability overwhelmingly clear that even having this discussion seems bizarre. Everyking (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge in to respective articles 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.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 06:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is a policy concerning the material within an article, not if there should be an article.Casprings (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I voted "keep or merge" on the Todd Akin controversy article, but an umbrella article that covers all the controversies together is quite justified because of the impact it had on the election in the short term and the US abortion debate in the long term. I disagree with the nominator when he says "There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article." (Why not? Neutrality implies that we cover all significant viewpoints fairly, and give the facts. I see no reason why that cannot be done here) and "...this is just always going to be a list of statements that made brief headlines in a partisan election cycle." (No, the article should also covers reactions, the consequences this had on central Republican support, and the impact the statements had on the election, which included the Republicans losing a presumed safe pick-up in Missouri, and a close race in Indiana.) The nomination's claim that the title may as well be "List of things nasty Republicans said that offended people" is also a silly attack on a strawman argument, and anyone trying to move this article to that title as being just as good as the present title would be reverted and sanctioned for WP:POINT very quickly. Apart from the wide news coverage at the time, the impact of the controversy was lasting since they had a major and probably decisive impact on two senate elections, and caused consternation deep into the Republican party also after the election. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be entirely rewritten. This piece is full of bias and largely garbage. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy KEEP I am not entirely unconvinced that someone might possibly be gaming the system. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that Scott MacDonald, he sure is notorious for gaming the system, huh? Any, uh, reason for your "strong and speedy keep"? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he's the guy that a couple of years ago held the whole concept of consensus and community discussion in "utter contempt" ... Now here, gaming the system maybe's a bit too much, but sure this AFD is not good process. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously an article that's about a how a bunch of comments by Republicans adversely affected Republicans' election results is not going to make Republicans look super awesome.  But there are plenty of other articles about controversies on Wikipedia and this article is well-sourced with many quotes from people, including Republicans, who came to that exact conclusion.  I don't think that makes the article POV.  If the article were POV insofar as it omitted some discussion of how reliable sources said that actually these comments helped Republicans (although I don't think such a discussion by reliable sources exists), then the article should be edited, not deleted.  It doesn't seem like there's a notability or fundamental inappropriateness issue here.  AgnosticAphid  talk 07:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very widely reported; over a long period of time. Of great interest to a large number of people.   Topic-wise:  it is a natural sub-article of the top-level article on the 2012 campaign season (viz United States elections, 2012). --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutrality issues are not suppose to be addressed by nominating an article for deletion. The article should include information about other reactions to the controversies, but this can be done. Roewyn (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC) — Roewyn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep per Go Phightins! Automatic  Strikeout  19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I consider keeping this an important BLP issue. Having a more detailed overview of this important 2012 election issue in a separate article reduces undue weight and recentism in their respective biographies. The biographies of each person involved were heavily weighted toward this recent controversy instead of their overall public service. Having a separate article helps ease the WP:UNDUE that invariably happens when people get outraged about this or that. Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep These events were widely covered, and widely linked, in reliable sources. (Just type "Mourdock Akin rape" into Google and take a glance at the results--pretty much every news source in America, and many from abroad). Obviously, it's not SYNTH to link events that thousands of reliable sources also link. As for neutrality issues, those would be best addressed by editing the article, rather than deleting it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, widely covered in reliable sources. Claim that article can never be NPOV is bunkum. Yworo (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Merge with War on Women or leave it as a separate article, but in either case re-name the article to something neutral, like "Women's issues in the 2012 U.S. elections" or "Abortion in the 2012 U.S elections". Jesus H. Christ, stop making Wikipedia into a propaganda and sloganeering tool.  It's just supposed to be an encyclopedia.71.162.106.56 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — 71.162.106.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. 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 WP:FIXIT. This applies not only to the nom but also to many of the Delete arguments I see here. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If only it were possible to fix it. Problem is that several editors seem to want to throw as much crap to the wall and see what sticks.  Kind of like the non-controversy John Koster issue which has no place in any article.  Hell the guy doesn't even have is own article, but some off-hand remark in a local state election is a controversy that applies to the entire 2012 election process?  The POV pushing on that page is simply disgusting.  Arzel (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His comments were picked up nationally and by his own admission cost him his race. Besides it was a House seat, how is that different then Akin or Mourdock? That said, if there is a problem with the Koster section, lets talk about, take the needed steps to get a consensus, and come to it. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also including the specific identity of the subject (GOP/Republican Party) is required by our rules, and because it's properly sourced, there is no NPOV violation. Whitewashing isn't allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 27 November 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.