Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and pregnancy statement 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While the comments themselves appear worthy of inclusion on their respective talk pages, the controversies taken together seem to fail notability, WP:SYNTH, and WP:EVENT. DoomLexus (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies - 'talk pages' should be articles. I think the comments are worth inclusion on the respective election pages, but not synthesizing the disparate comments together to suggest something not apparent in the RSs. DoomLexus (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This boils down to statements by one candidate. There is no reason that we cannot adequately cover anything worth covering in the article on that candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock are two separate candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Akin's comments are independently notable per the numerous sources cited in the article; there is no reason to think that the entire topic should be merged into Akin's BLP. The only WP:SYNTH in the article appears to have been done by the cited reliable sources, which is entirely appropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator has reached the conclusion that the connection between the different politicians' comments is "not apparent in the RSs" when all eight of the sources cited in footnote 5 make that connection absolutely explicit. Those sources are also sufficient to indicate that this is satisfies WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT #2. EVENTCRIT #1 is not indicated by the article at present, but is probably met too; see for example ongoing coverage in 2015 and 2017. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect your vote. For what it's worth, having read the articles listed in source 5, I was and am unconvinced that the connection was apparent. They generally just state that the candidate lost and (separately) that they made these comments -- outside of the titles, there's no linkage. I don't think that's enough to establish independent notability of the comments under our event guidelines, but understand if you feel differently. Best, DoomLexus (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple politicians said these comments, multiple WP:RSes commented on it being, as a phenomena, notable (See The Atlantic: Did Inflammatory Remarks About Rape and Abortion Doom GOP Candidates?. WP:SYNTH does not apply if WP:RS connect the events. Moreover, it is clearly notable.Casprings (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Comparing similar statements made by two Republican candidates and speculating on the potential impact it had on their campaigns is a great topic for an undergrad PoliSci paper, but does not make for a good wiki article. BestSince1996 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV. This was a major issue in 2012, and potentially tipped control of the United States Senate that year. As several experienced and respected Wikipedians have noted, the coverage is there. Anybody over the age of 30 will remember it, and to deny that is gaslighting. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The controversies like others have said were notable at the time and had impacted multiple Senate races. I'm not seeing how WP:SYNTH applies given how the statements have reliable sources.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 22:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Coming from a fairly inexperienced wikipedia writer regarding politics, I read the article and found it very interesting and engaging in fact shocking at the way those politicians talk about rape. The article definitely adds value to wikipedia. Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else. This was a major issue during the election cycle. If it boils down mostly to the statements of one politician in particular, then a rename is in order, not an AfD. Love of Corey (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is absurdly well-sourced across multiple RS's indicating notability. Strong keep. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2020 (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.