Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy


 * 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 delete with the possibility of merge of some material into Richard Mourdock. In coming to this decision, I have discounted some keep arguments on the grounds of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am also swayed by the WP:NOTNEWS argument over claims the article is verifiable in sources.  Spinning Spark  12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Could possibly be merged with the candidate's biography. Keihatsu (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete- This is almost verbatim of the AP article online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.130.162 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin The article has been moved to Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape is "something God intended" controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note two: Now at Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic topic. Merge a line or two into the candidate's bio, if desired; or not. I wish the elections were over. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too much WP:SOAP in this comment for it to hold any weight in this discussion. --Topping (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How's that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You want SOAP?!?! I'll give you something to whine about... This is a bullshit political article directly related to the 2012 American political campaign that won't matter more than a drop of water in the ocean to anybody in about three weeks. I think it is pretty infantile that people think they can affect election results by creating (or deleting) political stupidity on Wikipedia like this. This article, if written on paper, should be crumpled up in a small paper ball and thrown into a wastebasket, and the creator given an F and sternly admonished to get serious or get the fuck out of class. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political propaganda tool. Work for the project or leave. THERE'S your fucking soapbox speech... Carrite (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious attack page. Fails to include mitigating information. William Jockusch (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How very diplomatically understated. The "mitigating information" includes the grammatical subject of the sentence being partially quoted, that subject being "Life". "Pregnancy from Rape" is nowhere to be found in any of the Mourdock statements, but is a paraphrase injected into the partial quote.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not enough info or media coverage; recommend move to candidate page. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete - speedy wise - Carrite covered it all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly has enough sources to be WP:N. The story should not simply be merged because of its relation to the Romney Campaign(He just cut an add for him today), which is also being covered.  Casprings (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that this article is part of the PRESIDENTIAL campaign, broadly construed, then the existence of this article violates the WP General Sanctions all editors must abide by.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Within the Richard Mourdock article, the sources contribute to the WP:GNG of the Richard Mourdock biography topic. However, when you move the controversy sources into their own stand alone article, they no longer are independent of the topic - the controversy sources are part of controversy topic. In that regard, the controversy sources need to have news articles (or books, or magazines, etc.) writing about them to provide the independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Here, the topic fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There does appear to be precedent since the Legitimate rape controversy already has its own article, Mourdock's remarks are attracting similar levels of attention and there have been a lot of comparisons between the two cases. Actually, maybe just having one article (2012 rape controversies in United States politics?) might be another option since rape, and Republican politicians' inarticulate comments relating to the same, seems to be one of the big issues of the 2012 election season. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The specific issue has received in-depth coverage by multiple sources in the prestige press, including CBS News, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, amongst many others. If that's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then nothing is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything that gets coverage, even as that quote says, gets an article. This is an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it your political blogWhatzinaname (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Incredibly hastily created. This is the very point of WP:NOT. Merge to United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92 Talk 05:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:RS is overwhelming for this.  The sources are international, the most prominent, and wildly viral.  There is not a single Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of an article with sources this substantial.  I suppose there are certain partisans who would not care for the article's existence, but we cannot listen to bias.  We must follow policy.  We rarely, rarely, rarely see WP:RS of this level and magnitude. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I can't stand Mourdock or what he said, but inclusion as a separate article on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sources or their virality. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOT forbids, and there is no reason whatsoever why the multitude of sources cannot be used to create detailed subsections in United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92 Talk 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep while articles on current events are better started at a related article (such as the presidential campaign or the candidate article), then given their own article as details can flesh it out, this is widely reported on, and deleting it now is an almost guaranteed long term error, as this is in all likelihood not going away, and is drawing responses from the 2 prez candidates. side note: it would have to be redirected, not deleted, though the current article title is a highly unlikely search term. And, a redirect would allow for easy and instant recreation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "almost guaranteed". Wikipedia waits until there is not doubt about the independent notability, doesnt predict it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe that if a subject is addressed in multiple articles, its best to give the subject an article of its own, so each separate article doesnt have to repeat the material verbatim. this is now relevant for him, his race, the presidential race, and probably articles on women and politics, women's issues in the us, etc. PS wikipedia is SUPPOSED TO WAIT until there is no doubt, at least in theory. there are lots of these current events articles which go to AFD and are kept, despite their being perhaps premature.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't deserving of its own article.  Make a new section on Mourdock's page.  Also, the wording and capitalization in the title of this article is atrocious.  lukini  (talk &#124; contribs) 15:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge It's news-worthy with numerous independent sources. We can decide whether it deserves it's own page after the hype dies down. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I renamed the article, removing the wording and capitalization problems in the process. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Returned the page. If it is to be a move, lets get consensus first. Casprings (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be wise to protect the page, as Google News links the article. And all the page renamings will just be disruptive. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Not every notable event in the universe (or in the news media) needs its own article.  It is better to cover this development in the context of is campaign rather than as a stand-alone article.  Also, if this does survive, it clearly needs to be renamed to something shorter.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a note, I found this because the article is now linked on Google News. Dragons flight (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculous article. Merge content into Richard Mourdock article, done. -- Ja Ga  talk 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If the Legitimate rape article is notable enough, I don't see why this one isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.251.178 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not notable enough. It was the wrong AfD decision based on WP:RECENTISM and I intend to bring that article back to AfD after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Are you goddamn shitting me? This gets an article? Keep it to the Indiana Senate campaign and Mourdock articles and leave it at that. This is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Same as the Legitimate Rape article. Czolgolz (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt Absolutely no question this is a Speedy delete, and should not be up for a week under AfD. Pure attack article, and designation of this as a "controversy" takes opinion and puts it as fact in WP's voice. Truth is, Mourdock has always had a clear, well explained (though not shared by many) position on abortion exceptions. If you read the whole quote, he explains his position clearly, and why, and is respectful of other viewpoints. While his view is not mainstream, even in his party, his justification, as a whole sounds reasonable. It sounds controversial when paraphrased or when the quote is edited, and not without those "enhancements". Attack article, and created, as are most attack articles, to circumvent WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV/WP:BLP on the Mourdock or Senate campaign Articles. Therefore also a WP:FORK.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting point has come up on the page itself; absolute agreement that the Title HAS to change, but little agreement on the title needed, even though editors have some consensus on the facts. The "controversy" comes down to Mourdock saying "Life... is that gift from God", Democrat operatives claiming he said "Rape... is that gift from God", and reports that a controversy ensued. Problem for a title is that if you state in the title some misquote or paraphrase, that violates BLP and says in WP's voice that Mourdock said something he did not, while if you DON'T include a misquote or paraphrase, the title then does not tell the reader what the controversy is about. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Richard Mourdock: premature. While Todd Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments did become notable enough and generate enough controversy to justify a separate article, these haven't yet. Let's wait and see if this actually develops into a significant story before splitting it out. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * of course, Akin and Mourdock comments are as alike as apples and screwdrivers. Akin's, in context or out, were strange in the extreme. If you put Murdock's into a section on his views on Abortion, but of course THE WHOLE QUOTE, they would be succinct, accurate and reasoned, a ready made WP:NPOV entry, whether you agree with them or not (and many disagree, including most of his party). The hand-waving and screams both on and off WP that "this is controversial", and "this is a controversy" is what makes this controversial. The quote should be allowed to stand on its own, in the Mourdock article, and a note that some consider it controversial. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Absurd to give this an article; it belongs in the senate section. Truthsort (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a mention in the candidate's bio should be enough. God, I can't wait for this election season to be over. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, on 7th November the new election season will start and things like this will come up all over again. Tiller54 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Keep: Title way too long; these types of ridiculous comments obviously need their own article. Merge to section in Richard Mourdock unless becomes big controversy like Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy. This is first time I've heard of it. CarolMooreDC 19:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge This is nowhere near notable enough for its own page. All these single pages for these controversies is turning Wikipedia into a tabloid. Transcendence (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Unless this blows up more and affects the 2012 election, it should be merged. No problem to KEEP it for a week or so meanwhile. Do NOT DELETE without a good faith effort to merge it into the main page on the candidate. Wxidea (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge The comments are absolutely notable, but can be covered in Richard Mourdock just fine. The title is especially problematic; I'm not sure that it's even possible to make a title that's unbiased, without it being either ambiguous or ridiculously long. The current title makes it seem like Mourdock is suggesting that the hypothetical rape itself would be intended by god...which isn't what he was saying. Whether or not the title can be fixed, I still think it's ridiculous as a standalone article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Merge redirect  revelant but would merge in his page and redirect. --KillAgo (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Not notable enough for its own article but notable enough to be mentioned on Mourdock's page and perhaps on the Senate election page. Tiller54 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge This is a significant, controversial statement that has garnered national attention and will undoubtedly shape Mourdock's biography and his Senate campaign, but it is not a large enough controversy to warrant its own article (in contrast to the similar incident with Todd Akin). 147.9.65.73 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Merge for now. If it grows enough legs it can always be split out late. AIR corn (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Mitt Romney dog incident and Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy. There is precedent for this and should be kept. Unfortunately, the votes for this Afd will probably be split among partisan lines.--YOLO Swag (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * those are simply other examples where electioneering hoo ha has fouled wikipedia. we need absolutely no more of that kind of crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Shouldn't have it's own page but I think the mention of it on his page is too brief at present. The most hideous thing about this page however is it's extremely long title. Yuck! Cls14 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait a day or three and see if the coverage better supports a keep, or a merge with War on Women. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It makes no sense to keep Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy, and delete this page; and WP:RS. Érico Wouters  msg 02:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Precedent, and such comments are not unique (Akin's comment, for example).  This will likely affect the close election of 2012.207.155.72.211 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge' into Richard Mourdock. Similar things should probably happen for some of the Keep references as well, as these are the correct places for them. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, now a stand-alone topic that is being extensively discussed in secondary sources. Speciate (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. This clearly has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as required under WP:GNG. As others have mentioned, however, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and one questions the lasting WP:EFFECT this controversy will have. On another note, we ought to have a notability guideline that encompasses elections, which inevitably skew coverage through incessant attention on candidates' actions and attempts to manufacture controversies like these. It's clear to me that there's an element of WP:ROUTINE to this kind of coverage: news outlets are pretty much forced to cover elections closely. A guideline could say it's generally better to include information about controversies in the candidate's article instead of creating a separate article until after the election, since it often takes until the political fervor dies down to determine whether the campaign's controversies had lasting effects that made them independently notable. If a controversy is seen by reliable sources to have played a major role in a candidate's success or defeat, for example, I could see the logic in having a separate article on it. On the other hand, early-campaign controversies like Mitt Romney's dog are more likely to be forgotten and have no lasting effect whether he wins or loses. From a practical standpoint, it makes more sense to me to expand the information in the candidate's biography and wait until after the election to decide whether it has lasting coverage (see WP:PERSISTENCE). --Batard0 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep temporarily. Although this topic is widely covered, most sources are not including the full context of the quote.  Having the full quoted paragraph at least allows people to decide for themselves whether this was a shameful comment or merely a poorly worded opinion.
 * Keep for now, merge later. Time will tell whether this remains notable. It appears that it may have a significant effect on this race, which in turn may determine which party has control of the senate. Ideally this article should be merged with Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy to create a broader article about controversies related to rape/pregnancy/abortion in the 2012 election cycle. However, I think that it may be easier to wait a bit before merging as this is still a very active controversy. Vroo (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or rename I suggest this be merged with the congressmen's main article; if it gets big enough to warrant a new article call it "Rich Mourdock pregnancy and rape" comments, or something more or succinct than the current name.

Binders full of arbitrary breaks

 * Delete  Notable means lasting coverage and the only way that this will be notable is if it ends up impacting the election - until that point it's a matter of WP:CRYSTAL.  In the midst of a major election it's expected that anything close to a gaffe will be picked up by most major news outlets; in the short term coverage is artificially strong but it's impossible to tell what will and won't be significant when it's over.  I would have !voted redirect but I don't think many people will be typing in "Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy" and so a redirect doesn't seem to serve much purpose.  Sædon talk  00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS for starters.  This is becomming a problem on WP.  Someone says something that is suddenly a "CONTROVERSY!" and then editors run to WP to create an article, pushing it in the most negative light possible.  Around the election season it is even worse.  Arzel (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that says that this widely covered event will disappear and will not affect the already close Senate race in Indiana, then? I agree that this article shouldn't exist, but seemingly suggesting that the event itself is WP:NOT is a bit of a stretch. Plenty of reliable sources backing up the event and its possible implications. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ROFL - even in your defense you can only claim " possible implications." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm claiming "possible implications." I certainly don't know if it'll change the Senate race or not...the same as people who say "well we don't know so we shouldn't cover it!" There are plenty of reliable sources suggesting that it might affect the both that race and have ripples effects. Let's see, the Indianapolis Star says: "U.S. Senate nominee Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape and abortion have ignited a political firestorm that reaches far beyond his own election to the race for the White House." and quotes "'This close to Election Day a statement like Mourdock’s has the potential of being decisive,' said Robert Schmuhl, professor of American studies at the University of Notre Dame." Plenty of similar material from other sources. Seems newsworthy to me. It's not hard to figure out what the "possible implications" being discussed are...sorry if I didn't spell them out. My real point is that there are plenty of reasons to delete the article without essentially resorting to "this is mean to a candidate I like." – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont have a crystal ball that says my dog is not going to affect the elections, either, but i dont get to create an article about his potential game changing election effects and then wait to be proved wrong. you need to show the effect BEFORE it gets an article. utter nonsense -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, since I assume there aren't large numbers of reliable sources currently covering your dog and his possible effects on the election. Though, perhaps I am wrong and your dog is being covered and analyzed extensively in the media, which would seem to merit a mention. Note that I have not argued to keep this article, but quite the opposite. But I think it's just stupid to consider the entire event not newsworthy at all. (When in many cases, it seems like that's being used as a cover for "don't like it." This isn't directed at you.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 13:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have lots of reliable sources that actually say that THIS has any likelyhood of being an election game changer? I havent seen one. All I have seen is the fact that it is a word Obama's campaign and the politcial partisan bloggosphere have been using. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some reasonable analysis:  and some local coverage in Indiana: , saying that the comments may pose a problem for Mourdock and possibly Romney as well. Here are a bunch of quotes showing that, yes, even some Republicans are saying the comments may have consequences: . (Not intended as an RS of course, but to address your assertion that only the Obama campaign and partisan blogs are calling this damaging.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news lists this article in the ongoing news flap about it. I don't know where this social movement is going, but it's not a good sign.  Keith Henson (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's a bit of a judgment call. However, some articles are likely to become elements of history.  Like New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak and unfortunately, this one.  Keith Henson (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this unencyclopedic cruft. -- No  unique  names  07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I would keep for now and review later for MERGE/REDIRECT. --216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I frankly don't care what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is just the latest temporary flare up of the political spin cycle and hardly independently worth of a Wikipedia article. Kansan (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This should not even be a discussion. The sources tell us unambiguously that the subject is notable. Everyking (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you do, make it speedy I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. But I clicked on it from Google News, where it is one of the top links for this story.  This is not the first time I have been greeted by an unsightly red-and-white deletion template when clicking to Wikipedia from Google News, and I tend to think that it is bad PR for Wikipedia.  There should be a general policy for this kind of article and it should be executed swiftly so that (if it's deleted) Google News will pick up either a different Wikipedia article or none at all, or (if it's kept) people clicking to Wikipedia for the first time will see a clean article without unsightly tags.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Application of Wikipedia policies should not be driven by content in Wikinews nor by the fact that some people think tags look ugly. (It is in my opinion a great benefit to our readers to be consistantly reminded that Wikipedia is a user generated work in progress and NOT a factual bible). BUT Wikipedia policies regarding these NOTNEWS articles should be better developed to better handle them, particularly those of the political campaign media smear and mass shooters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, BlueMoonlet. People should bear in mind the usefulness of these articles when they are prominently placed on Google News. When noteworthy political controversies occur, when should not ignore them; we should try to aggregate the information into a coherent encyclopedic form. We have to choose between being useful and being useless. Everyking (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is NOT wikipedia's purpose to shine light on breaking news stories. We are an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote, please. Everyking (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the content. This is getting a ton of coverage and is clearly notable.  The title is awful (I don't think anyone supports that as a final title).  I am comfortable with a merge+redirect to Mourdock's page, or a move to a better title.  --  stillnotelf   is invisible  17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richard Mourdock. Within that article it can be presented with balance as part of his biography, and with the appropriate prominence avoiding an undue weight issue. True we can't predict whether there is any long term impact of the incident, but right now it is simply news that doesn't justify an article - especially one with a troubling title that is hard to make NPOV. If it has long term impact it can become an article later. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 18:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more binders full of arbitrary breaks

 * Merge to Richard Mourdock... it's been explained in detail by many other users. At this point, it just appears to be a bit of news that's related to Murdock but may or may not rise to a bigger issue. But, at the moment, it clearly isn't being treated the same way as Akin's comments. Not really anything I can add that hasn't been said already... 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Per above. Gage (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richard Murdock Richard Mourdock I've been watching too much The A-Team lately, apparently . As indicated by other editors above, this is a news story and our readers are best served by having information about it in the article about the candidate who made the statement. The issue itself is intimately attached to the candidate and/or the relevant political race, and there is no justification for a redundant standalone article. -- Kinu  t/c 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Richard Mourdock - and possibly also War on women. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already mentioned in that article. Well, it should still be merged into RM's page - it doesn't deserve its own article yet. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge NN as its own event, only within context of Mourdock's campaign. WP:SNOW at this point, really. czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richard Mourdock for all the reasons given above. Well this is significant, it does not warrant its own article, as it has not been covered nearly as extensively as the Akin comments. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richard Mourdock (or even re-work the Todd Akin legitimate rape page into a more general page on Republicans and rape comments in the 2012 campaigns). This was certainly noted but doesn't have sufficient impact on its own to justify a separate page. If that changes--if it continues to be in the news for a prolonged period of time--it can be unmerged easily enough. JJL (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Move for fucks sake To Richard Mourdock pregnancy controversy. Which I just tried to do but it is move protected. Who the hell came up with the current title should be bloody well blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You guys realize that a merge vote would add undue weight into the Mourdock article right? Truthsort (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not undue weight to have an entire article on it? Not everything needs to be included, but that's how some things end up. Reywas92 Talk 18:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete per above. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 19:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: If we do keep the article, then for goodness' sake we need to change the title-- the current title is as objectively false as claiming that the sky is red and the ocean is purple. He argued, as shown in the complete statement, that pregnancy resulting from rape (as with, in his view, any other way) should have the fetus be carried to term since God intends all pregnancies to be carried to term. End stop. The title, for obvious partisan reasons, gives the false impression that he said a)God intends people to be raped and that b)God intends for those rapes to create pregnancies. As a non-believer / an agnostic in the very idea of Murdock's God, I find his views unreasonable, but there's no reason for Wikipedia to libel him by deliberately misquoting him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, the sky can often look red and the ocean purple... but whatever... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The best solution at this point seems to be making an article on the GOP and rape in this election, but failing that, merge to Richard Mourdock and summarize/link elsewhere as appropriate. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anyone who thinks that this is an insignificant part of the presidential election, discussed only the United States and soon to be forgotten, think again: Significant coverage worldwide in Russian, Spanish , German , and French . More importantly, the story is described as part of a larger narrative about the GOP's attitude toward women rather than an isolated incident. Keep. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Richard Mourdock. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this needs to be separate from the person's own article. -- NINTENDUDE 64 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Anyone who thinks that this is a significant part of the presidential election, and won't soon to be forgotten, think again. More importantly, the story is not part of a larger narrative about the GOP's attitude toward women, but rather than an isolated incident stupid bone head comment. Delete. --Malerooster (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Richard Mourdock. This is definitely not a viable search term as it is, and while I believe this event has received significiant coverage and that reliable sources have commented that it will likely affect his career long-term, it is content that is worth keeping.  However, it really should be merged where it will be found:  Over on the BLP article.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge a few sources into the main article--this is exactly why Wikinews exists. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT regardless of what happens, the title of the article needs to be changed immediately. Since when do we allow the parsing of quotes like that in an article let alone the title of an article?  This is a huge BLP violation as it reads like Mourdock says that God intended for rapes to result in pregnancy, which is not what he said.  On a minor note "God" in this context is capitalized as a proper noun.  Arzel (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the appropriate forum for name change discussion is on the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anonymous209.6. Automatic  Strikeout  23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -Delete- Do we have to create a new article every time a politician says something controversial?!?! (aka everyday) Seriously, Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:07, 31 October 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.