Richard Mourdock just lost the Senate race and the media primarily blame this controversy. As such, it is WP:N and is no longer WP:Crystal Ball. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I just saw the merge discussion. I am asking for the recreation of an article. It was a controversy that cost a senate election. As such, I feel it is WP:N enough for a standalone article. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what's your proof this is the reason he lost? CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The media says so. Virtually any story on this race mentions the comments. Some exempts, Here, Here, Here, Here. One can find many more with a simple google news search of him.
Comment. So far as I can see during the previous DRV[1] the material was merged into United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 with this edit, probably losing copyright attribution to the original editors. I have no strong feeling about whether this has been satisfactory or not. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (delete/merge) An obvious close, arguments about whether the hammering of Mourdock by his opponent on his debate answers can be substantiated by WP:RS and are thus WP:N are all thoroughly within the article on the campaign, and are arguments for the size of the entry within that article per WP:UNDUE. WP does NOT encourage separate spinout articles, for obvious reasons, and no good argument was made that this particular campaign talking point should be a standalone article. The standalone invites the many, many NPOV issues that partly led to its deletion, and by its separate existence (as opposed to mention WITHIN the campaign article) it makes a statement in WP's voice that this is as important as the campaign itself, when it was actually mostly a component of a partisan fight. It also inappropriately minimizes that Mourdock's opponent is also pro-life, and tried to stay away from general abortion issues, and that Indiana has a long history of electing bipartisan pols of both political parties(see Lugar, Bayh), something Mourdock proudly declared he was NOT. Opinion pieces that come before all results are certified and released are by their very nature not grounds for revisiting. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close The only real question is whether the material should be merged to the article on the campaign or to the article on Murdoch. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already merged into campaign article, and would argue WP policy makes that the right move. Taken on their own, in context, or published just as a reasoning for Mourdock's views on abortion exceptions, the debate statement seem unremarkable, even though a minority view. That his opponent cast his comments on life as instead being pro-rape doesn't really change his position, but the success of the effort is absolutely relevant to the campaign. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD, and note that the title sits uncomfortably with WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. The material involved can be appropriately covered on other pages in appropriate context and weight. Wikipedia should not have this title as a link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep as is. The event merits coverage, but the fallout here is simply that Mourdock lost some votes, which may have proven to be decisive. The fact that Mourdock defeated the moderate Lugar in the primary is the event that is credited with making the race competitive in the first place, and the primary election, a far bigger event than the offensive comment by Mourdock in the debate, is covered within the United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 article. The event is similar to the Akin controversy in Missouri, but the fallout was smaller. Akin drove away almost all his financial supporters and the central Republican funding and the outcry was also much greater there. Mourdock still retained Republican support for his candidacy, although his view on this point was repudiated by many. The entire controversy can therefore be covered in context of the senate race article, and a separate article is not needed. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
