Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was merge and delete. Among the policy-based opinions voiced below, there is an overwhelming consensus that an article with this title should not exist. It is absolutely irrelevant whether the article is of sufficient length, has references, etc. Rather, this debate is about the inherent merit of the topic of this article and its place within the larger context of related articles. Those who have actually managed to address these core issues of this debate are clearly in favor of not including an article on this topic in this encyclopedia. Opinions on merging are a bit more divided; however, merging worthwhile changes between related articles is standard procedure. However, any necessary mergers may have already happened (see Alphax' comment). There is no overwhelming support for leaving behind a redirect. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush

I'm restarting this AfD given the events that have involved a number of sysops at WP:AN/I. Per deletion review, I think it would be best for this AfD to be restarted.

Remember, no vote-stacking please (it is frowned upon) and in particular no sockpuppetry. Do assume good faith, and debate with civility here. Your opinon should be based on the merit/demerit of the article itself, and not by the events from the previous AfD. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask that persons expressing their views avoid posting long copies of policies which we already know. Lengthy arguments or replies to opinions you dislike should be placed on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)) where everyone who is interested will be able to read and respond at length without making a hash of the AfD for those editors who are not interested in lengthy back-and-forth argument. Thank you. Thatcher131 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the following is the reason given by the nominator in the previous AfD :

  • This article is merely a soapbox for Wikipedia editors who want George W. Bush impeached. We already have an article called Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which in my opinion is informative and NPOV. It should also be of note that some editors who want this page here and are frequent editors to this page initiated a bad faith RfC against Merecat, who was trying to make the page conform to NPOV. BlueGoose 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both Merecat (talk · contribs) and BlueGoose (talk · contribs) turn out to be using sockpuppets in this debacle.Holland Nomen Nescio 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article is not titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush". So whether or not there is or is not "serious discussion on The Hill about beginning these processes" is completely irrelevant to this article, which is about reasons for impeachment, not the movement for impeachment. Those reasons certainly do exist and are notable, quite apart from whether the movement for impeachment exists or who may or may not be participating in it. -- noosphere 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not notable when these so-called "rationales" are espoused by fringe leftist groups and do not reflect any significant body which can impact the situation in any way. --Strothra 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the main article this was split from, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, is far too long and needs to be cut down so that article can include the rationales, and I don't think that voting for a merge would achieve that. Nevertheless, as a second choice I would support a merge if the parent article were cut down significantly so that Wikipedia doesn't just wind up with one double-length article. Note that the title of this article has been changed to Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - But I most definitely will be keeping an eye on this one. Cyde Weys 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is a POV fork. The relevant information already exists in Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --RWR8189 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete The list of rationales for impeachment is given at Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Each section of the article is covered in greater detail in several other articles (NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Bush-Blair memos, and so forth). The only function served by the current article is to create summaries of those articles (offering an opportunity to introduce POV) and install a level of indirection between Movement to impeach George W. Bush and the primary description of the events which have motivated the movement. Verifiable information which is not included in those other articles linked under the section headers should be merged to the appopriate articles, and the current article deleted; the page on the movement can point to those articles directly. Choess 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Delete, redirect, and protect against recreation This article is just a soap-box for people who don't like Bush. It is an inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Also, I don't know exactly what Mailer Diablo means by "vote stacking", but no one has been able to provide any policy link that says people can't recruit additional participants to an AfD. Sock-puppetry is prohibited. Get out the vote campaigns are not prohibited. Johntex\talk 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I define it as Meatpuppetry. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not against WP policy, how ever much some people may not like it. Johntex\talk 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article (quote from official policy on sockpuppetry, more on the subject in that same paragraph.) Is this policy real and applicable? Weregerbil 09:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's valid, just not applicable. That quote is from a section titled Advertising and soliciting single-purpose accounts. It reads in context "It's also inappropriate to invite 'all one's friends' to help argue an article. Soliciting people to create accounts for the purpose of arguing on your side is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." The policy is about recruiting your-off wiki friends to come create a single purpose account. That hasn't happened here, so that policy is not on point. Johntex\talk 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meatpuppetry means a person recruiting other people on an online forum or something of that like, not asking established WP members to comment, at least in my interpretation of the definition. BlueGoose 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is serious weaselwording (WP:WEASEL). I don't see anything so very special about stacking an AfD vote with people who would otherwise never notice a debate (outsiders) as opposed to stacking an AfD vote with people who would otherwise never notice a debate (WP editors who don't normally follow AfD). There's a point where, strange though it may sound in the partisan We Have To Get Those Guys And Screw The Rules climate in the United States, common sense ought to prevail for a change. RGTraynor 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The above comments are very disturbing. Wikipedia's debates, except those on policy changes, tend to follow a format along the lines of policy application. In a perfect deletion debate, the points of contention would be along the notability guidelines WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:BAND; inclusion policies WP:NOT and WP:NOR are also common points of contention. Certain policies, like common courtesy (WP:NPA), user identification (WP:SIG), and no use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets (WP:SOCK), are expected to be followed. These last three policies that I listed are old. Very, very old. They are core tenets of the system, and the system cannot be expected to function correctly without them in place. The fact that not just one editor, but in fact two editors, have expressed blatant disregard for one of these policies is something that should make all of us sit up and pay attention. To the two editors who say that WP:SOCK does not apply, I say this: Wikipedia is not a democracy. We operate on debate and consensual process. "Get out the vote" is appropriate in America, where the person with the most money gets elected, but it doesn't work here. The closing admin has the last word on which votes count. If you actively engage in meatpuppetry, your votes and their votes may not be counted. Instead of quantity, focus on quality — make quality arguments. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 03:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Very obvious POV fork covered in other articles as NPOV item. Delete with extreme prejudice.--Tbeatty 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why is it not possible that there is objective evidence for the impeachment of a president? This article can provide these rationales. Also, it is bad faith to put an article up for Deletion for the second time in a day, when the previous article name also had an AfD finishing today. This seems to be an abuse of the process for purely political reasons. If people put this much effort into making the article NPOV it would be done by now. (Slight exaggeration should be noted for the last sentence). Ansell 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It couldn't really be made NPOV unless it was removed entirely hence why we're arguing. --Strothra 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please be aware, that this is not a re-nomination. It is a restart of the second AfD. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ansell - you are on the right track that political sheenanigans are at play in this being listed twice in one day. However, if there is bad faith it lies with the anti-bush admin who first voted on deletion, then improperly closed the original AfD within 1 day of its being created. Johntex\talk 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With respect to your use of the phrase "objective evidence", please see m:MPOV (megalomaniacal point of view), defined as the belief that one's own personal viewpoints are neutral. -- Curps 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has 13 edits. --David.Mestel 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This topic seems to be notable enough and is well-sourced. As for merging into Movement to impeach dubya, I would point out that that article is already pretty long, and would become unmanageable if this were to be merged into it. --David.Mestel 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog and not a soapbox. We should not have articles providing advocacy for or against political actions. We should have NPOV articles on political organisations, figures and movements of note in various countries not the arguments that they use. Capitalistroadster 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs major cleanup. It isn't a POV fork or soapboxing (well it is soapboxing, but it is cited soapboxing of others which is something that is allowed). Kotepho 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per my reasons on the SECOND delete nom. Gah. In brief: If there are U.S. Congressmen who are moving to impeach Bush, then the reasons should be enumerated somewhere. Three AFDs in under a month -- and 2 of them in the same day -- is also quite silly. Keep and work to NPOV more. Janet13 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and cleanup). I was tempted to vote merge into Movement to impeach George W. Bush; however WP:SIZE really pushes against that (both are long by themselves). Given that this article is sufficiently clearly identified as a child topic of the aforsaid article, I think it is reasonable (in principle) as an elaboration. obviously, the topic is prone to POV-mongering, but it need not automatically suffer that. LotLE*talk 06:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I do agree that User:Cyde's action in prematurely closing the last AfD, and blocking users who voted against him! was highly reprehensible, and a definite abuse of admin powers. The fact I happen to vote in the same direction as him doesn't mean that I think this AfD should not be resolved according to proper process, just like any other AfD (political topic or not). LotLE*talk 06:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kotepho says above that "Cited sopaboxing by others" is allowed. I disagree. While I assume we have articles on white supremacy, anti-semitism, nazism, and so on, bringing together arguments from these diverse sources into an article Reasons why Jews secretly control the world would be unacceptable on so many grounds I can't list them all. This article is basically the same, starting with a book about impeachment and then piling on with everything that has happened in the last 6 years that is supposedly GWB's fault. The desires of some to see George Bush impeached are not a topic for an encylopedia entry unless they have some foundation in reality (and by this I mean the reality of the impeachment process, not the reality of having been stated in a quotable source). No one in the House of Representatives has even proposed a draft of Articles of Impeachment. Inclusion of particular topics as "rationales" is based on highly POV sources, and constitutes original research, crystal balling and soapboxing by the wikipedia editors involved. Further comments here and here. Thatcher131 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Choess' excellent summary of another fundamental problem with this article. Thatcher131 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: George W. Bush is the top political leader of the militarily most powerful State on this planet. "The Jews" are a fuzzily-defined set of millions of people, whose membership is often a matter of personal religious/cultural identity, and which contains people of a vast variety of different social, cultural, political and linguistic traditions. The reasons presented by people advocating the impeachment of Bush for actions he allegedly took (of failed to take) as part of his role as President of the USA may be right or wrong, but they have no relation to racist stereotyping or conspiracy theories; rather, they are part of a documentable phenomenon of major international political importance. Boud 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the advanced comparison with anti-semitism is a prime example of flawed reasoning. Beyond that, it is an afront to the millions that have been persecuted through history. To claim that ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust and persecution are comparable to outlining what is alleged to be violations of the law/impeachable offenses is uneacceptable. Heck, by that logic we can assert that prisoners on death row (just like the Jews) were unfairly judged on material the DA willfully gathered ("bringing together arguments from ... diverse sources") while making his case.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nescio, your analogy regarding "prisoners on death row" either is equally flawed or once and for all proves our point. If that analogy is allowed to be carried out, then it all but admits that all this article serves to do is to "willfully gather...arguments from...diverse sources" to pass judgement on the President. Be careful not to hang yourself with your own rope.--WilliamThweatt 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said to Nescio and Boud.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The title says it all. Fundamentally, this is essay material, not an encyclopedia entry. Essays may be well written, carefully argued or achieve notability, for instance, Bertrand Russell's well-known Why I Am Not a Christian; however, essay material is not and can not ever be an encyclopedia entry. This is not fixable by changing the "real" title from "Why George Bush should be impeached" to "Rationales for impeachment" to "Rationales provided by advocates for impeachment" or any further levels of obfuscating indirection. Nor is it fixable by any amount of editing to couch everything in third-person phrasing. Nor is it fixable by providing more references ("some people agree with me" can be demonstrated for nearly any opinion on any topic). This is no more encyclopedic than Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, which someone created as WP:POINT, or any of thousands of similar advocacy pages which could be created. It simply does not belong in Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Some editors are letting partisanship get the better of them and trying to tortuously construe some "Rationale for a 'Rationales for impeachment' article". The murky circumstances of the abrupt shutdown of the previous AfD and blocking of several editors were also very unhelpful. -- Curps 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the previous AfD, Cyde Weys posted There is way too much vote-stacking going on. I got recruited by a keep voter and apparently a bunch of other people were recruited by a delete voter. [1] Who was the keep voter who "recruited" you, and did you block that person too? -- Curps 07:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he did. Thatcher131 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or delete if some of this content can be merged into other articles fine, otherwise this should be deleted, either way this article is a POV pusher's paradise and should be gotten rid of in it's current form. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename --waffle iron talk 13:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see 2nd nom EricR 13:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the other arguments above. It's not encyclopedic but a list of grievances. I am myself quickly running out of patience with Dubya (and this is someone who voted for the cretin twice), but on the other hand Wikipedia is not a court of law where we argue in article namespace for or against a proposition. It's also highly theoretical, as even the proponents assert ("[Rep.] Conyers has called for investigating whether this constitutes an impeachable offense[1]" "these violations of US...law could be an impeachable offense[2]" "is seen by some as an impeachable offense[3]" "how any Katrina-related complaints rise to the level of an impeachable offense has not been explained[4]"-- my emphasis) that perhaps not all of the charges are impeachable according to current legal theory, and some do not even asert whether or not the offense is impeachable at all. Pat Payne 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
added links to the quotes. Pat Payne 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per other comments. This looks like badly veiled propaganda. Wiki should be an encyclopedia; plenty of other places for such articles, but not wiki. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the authors of this page should start their own blog, not disrupt wikipedia's quest to become a reliable source of information. there is no way this article could ever have a neutral point of view. Anthonymendoza 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is not encyclopedic Aeon 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete &;mdash; Dan | talk 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE STRONGEST KEEP VOTE I HAVE EVERY MADE. This is just surreal. the 3rd consecutive VfD for this article. the worst and most shameless abuse of process i have ever seen. this, coupled with the most egregarious example of vote stacking i have ever seen. Kevin Baastalk 15:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the 2nd nomination was terminated prematurely and controversially after only one day with the delete side well ahead, you can hardly object to this 3rd nomination, which is nothing but a restart of the 2nd nomination. -- Curps 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did object, and do object, on the basis of _two_ premises. In any case, there was a very short span of time between the first and the second nomination. My second basis is the reason the vote was stopped: because it has been tainted by vote stacking. And now Merecat has been blocked for vote stacking. So I think my second premise is reasonably substantiated. albeit it may seem hyperbolic, it is true: i simply have not seen a more egregious example of vote stacking. so yes, i do object, on those grounds. Kevin Baastalk 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since this is not a vote, I am not sure how the process can be tainted by "vote stacking". And as far as I can tell, there was one or two possible sock puppets. Hardly a drop in the ocean of deletes. It seems to me that the Keeps are trying to game the system by tainting the process and therefore defaulting to keep. Delete with Extreme Prejudice--Tbeatty 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I guess the plan here is to just keep re-running this vote until folks get the outcome they like? Not unlike the way the guy was elected in the first place? Seriously, the judgement of history on this president will not be a kind one, and Wiki might as well be out in front, even if Gee Dub doesn't ever end up getting himself impeached. Atlant 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious, clear and present POV fork. Delete it as such, and revert Movement to impeach George W. Bush back to the pre-forking version. — May. 4, '06 [16:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Very Strong Keep Nobody has yet cited a cogent reason to delete the article.
    Vote stacking has allready happened, for this vfd. Most of the votes to delete betray the fact and problem that the voters haven't actually bothered to read the article, its references, or the articles discussion page. This isn't consensus process, its pack psychology and anarchy masquerading as such because of the ways the system is being gamed. The Article is about factual movements to impeach which are noteworthy because millions of people share the idea that impeachment should happen and because there are factually better than a dozen cogent legal reasons to impeach legally. Bush HAS IN FACT BROKEN SEVERAL LAWS. Anybody who has a problem understanding that, or accepting it, had best take a long deep breathe and meditate deeply while staring at the opened NPOV page. Prometheuspan 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    hahahaha I agree with Nasa. Besides, what laws are you talking about? Are you even aware that Bush does not make decisions by himself. There's an entire group of people from Congress to the Executive Branch to the Supreme Court that are all responsible for policy. Congress has give authority to the President to do everything he has done. Further, he was put in that position to execute the powers of President by the people of the United States through an election which was certified and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. He has exercised his contitutional authority to stretch the law during a time of war. The fact of the matter is, and the Department of Justice has verified all of his actions in the legal realm especially in dealing with the war and terrorism, for which no laws exist to govern thus no laws to be broken. The President himself has never been proven to have broken any laws. When an entire government bureaucracy exists to execute policy it is extremely difficult to point fingers at a single individual as responsible which is why impeachments so rarely occur.--Strothra 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You state that "The Article is about factual movements to impeach". That is not true. We already have such an article, with the obvious title Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which is not up for deletion, and this is not that article. -- Curps 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is 48k long, and this article is a sub-article of that one. — goethean ॐ 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "you don't seem like the person I'd turn to for cogent anything--IworkforNASA" What happened to civility? His views are exactly as valid as yours. Same to you, Strothra: If your opinion is valid and correct, then it will speak for itself. You do not need to insult someone else to get your point across; in fact, that will only hurt your argument. Cathal 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MilesVorkosigan. Grandmasterka 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a POV fork since it is simply a sub-article of Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Article simply documents why certain people would like to see Bush impeached. You can pick up an entire book on the subject at your local Border's. Reasons need to be given by deletionists why Wikipedia cannot report on the phenomenon the book describes. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131 - and I write this as someone who voted Keep the last time. I've been convinced. AnonEMouse 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. Rklawton 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evidence of doing something bad is one thing, but it takes original research to make the connection to impeachability. It's an NPOV soapbox at worst. --InShaneee 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The title has now been NPOV-ed. Unless the people proposing deletion and/or merging into Movement to impeach George W. Bush (or another article) actually do the step-by-step NPOV and reference searching and discussion work of reducing the length of the present article Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush in an NPOV way which does not remove relevant NPOV material, then i don't understand how they can justify deletion and/or merging. Boud 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retitled; right or wrong, some notable people think Bush has committed acts which merit impeachment, and there is nothing wrong with delineating the specific acts that have been notably identified by these people. Bear in mind, impeachment is a political process - Congress may classify anything as a "high crime or misdemeanor", so this is really just a list of acts that impeachment proponents would so classify with respect to this administration. Still needs much work, but POV is fixed through mechanisms other than AfD. BD2412 T 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I do want to point out again, though, that some of those "rationales" are false as they impinge on impeachment(this is not to say that they might not turn out to be negative marks on the record of the Administration). Hurricane Katrina, in particlar, butts right up against Hanlon's razor. You can't impeach for stupidity, incompetence or flat-footedness. If that were true, every president in US history should have at one point or another been hauled into the House for a trial (except for William Henry Harrison, of course :D ). Pat Payne 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (forgot sig)[reply]

comment I'm still trying to understand how we manage to discuss things around here, so, i hope that this interuption is in process. That said, Bush disbanded FEMA. Missed that detail did you? The devil is in the details, and the Katrina debacle allthough it sounds weak is actually a stronger argument for impeachment than some of the others. THAT said, i don't think that this is the place to argue pro or con per each rationale, the fact is, thousands of people believe that Bush should be impeached for this reason alone, and, the katrina debacle is their rationale. Prometheuspan 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? I'm sure there are lots of people working at FEMA who'd be suprised at that revelation. --Mmx1 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate, impeachment is a political decision. Congress could impeach the president for jaywalking if it wanted to. The only question is whether a majority of House members would vote out an article of impeachment on the ground raised. The rationales set forth by proponents essentially constitute sufficient political cover to justify the vote. BD2412 T 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Which is exactly why this piece shouldn't be an article on its own. It is the POV of a number of parties that these misdeeds rise to the level of impeachment. There's nothing other than opinion to distinguish them from other misdeeds of the president. It is well covered in each subarticle (Katrina, NSA, etc) in a NPOV way, collecting the criticisms under this banner is what constitutes OR and synthesis of facts. --Mmx1 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I see and appreciate your point of view, I still believe that "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not cover everything under the sun. Certainly, any House member could try to raise an impeachment bill on any topic. But "He bungled the Katrina situation" isn't even a crime. There can be arguments made for violating the War Powers Act, certainly, and perhaps violations of post Johnson and Nixon-era curbs on presidential powers over the intelligence services in the warrantless wiretapping business. Yet, realistically, nobody's going to bring an article of impeachment for his acting like a clay golem during Katrina (if that were true, he ought to share the dock with Michael Chertoff, Mary Landrieu and Ray Nagin) or being vindictive over Joseph Wilson's Yellowcake article -- unless he perjured himself over it, or ordered wider-ranging crimes due to it. But we've already seen what happens when one is impeached merely for being a jackass. Pat Payne 14:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Jackson was impeached by the House - he simply wasn't removed by the Senate. Of course, those who champion impeachment tend to do so with the idea that removal by the Senate will follow... but a president who is impeached and then not removed is thereafter effectively politically hamstrung. Ergo, it's all politics. BD2412 T 14:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As of here, the tally is 17 keep, 62 delete/merge/redirect, 1 neutral. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think it might be a good idea to seperate the delete, merge, and redirect votes? They're not the same. -- noosphere 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that many people (including myself) voted a combination of these choices. Since they all have the same effect, just performed differently, of removing the article, the only way to get a reasonable tally was to combine them. Besides, I only added this for convenience...the closing admin will need to actually determine consensus, not vote tallies. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, combining them is not the only alternative. And it is a misleading one, since it makes it seem like people voted for all three. The votes should be tallied as they're given. If a person says "merge/redirect", their vote should be counted as "merge/redirect", not as "merge/delete/redirect". -- noosphere 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suppose. I wouldn't be opposed to merging with Movement to impeach George W. Bush, but right now there's really nothing mergeable. However, I believe that we should not recreate as a protected page, as we might have to split up the Movement article at some point, and use some actual reasons in the Rationales article. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, I voted keep in the last one, but comments made above (especially Thatcher131's) convinced me otherwise. BryanG 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per WP:NOT... really can't be NPOV. See also WP:AWW Roodog2k 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and Delete to a political wiki. Not the stuff of an encyclopedia. Ashibaka tock 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful, encyclopedic content to Movement to impeach George W. Bush per CanadianCaesar. Soapboxing is obscuring the useful content here, sadly. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, or Cleanup - The article currently reads like a proposal for President Bush's impeachment, though some of the information it includes may prove valuable. I suggest either moving some of its information to another article such as Movement to impeach George W. Bush and deleting or redirecting it, or rewording the article so as to eliminate POV.--Conrad Devonshire 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the information can be summarised in the article on the impeachment movement, with links to the articles on the individual controversies, and links to some of the more significant references where people are calling for impeachment. Impressively enough, this Deletion page is now roughly as big as the article itself. (And for the record, no I wasn't "recruited" by a vote stacker, and yes I wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached but that doesn't mean I think this article deserves to be on WP). Confusing Manifestation 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was thinking about not voting, since I got a message on my Talk page to vote, and this is probably because I voted delete in the 2nd nomination. But on the other hand, I would have stumbled on this anyway since I do so many AfDs. So, it's all good. Anyway, I still think this is an obvious POV fork. More than that, Thatcher's arguments are extremely compelling; he's hit the nail on the head and was able to articulate the problem with this article way better than I could. And let me be clear, I am not saying delete the article because it contains I bunch of POV. I have voted keep whenever that was the only reason an article was up for AfD because that is not a valid reason to delete an article. However, this article is inherently POV; the very reason for this article to exist is to push a small minority's opinion. --Deville (Talk) 01:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason this article exists is to represent a significant minority's, including lawyers, legal scholars, politicians (such as [7]), the American Bar Association (which actually represents the majority of lawyers)..., rationale. FYI. Kevin Baastalk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "raison d'être" of this article is irredeemably ill founded. Delete in 5 days. This will give the "keep" editors time to extract what's here which can be recycled into a more appropriate format and manner in other pre-existing articles. Merecat 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I came up with the notion of comparing this to an article that may be titled Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and a troll soon WP:POINTed the thing. Personally, I think Bush has done some impeachable things, but this article is a POV push and violates WP:NOT. With all due respect to those that spent a lot of time editing this article...I would prefer to see it merged than deleted.--MONGO 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOR Ardenn 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a lot of verifiable content that shouldn't be thrown away. If there's perceived POV issues, deal with them.. KWH 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Guettarda 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unimportant, insigificant, biased, purely speculative. this may have a place in some activist journal or personal blog, but it has no place in this encyclopedia.--Jiang 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush per various arguments above. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not suitable medium for political propaganda.  Grue  05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: If this article wasn't noteworthy, there wouldn't be so many votes above. There is an avalanche of evidence supporting the rationale, starting with the vote scandal in Florida in 2000, a 'preemptive war' built around deception and deceit, prisoner abuse and torture, warrantless wiretapping and on and on. The specifics need to be sorted through and laid out, not shrouded by the sort of secrecy that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration, which itself was built upon the ultra secretive energy policies engineered by Cheney, Rummy, Rove, et al. Ombudsman 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Would vote to merge, but as stated above, the "Movement.." article is too long. This subject is definitely notable and encyclopedic. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as opinion. The entire article is built upon a rhetorical prompt: What if King George were impeachable? More importantly, how would he be impeached? The article is nothing but fluff designed to answer that question. It doesn't matter how neutrally it's written, or how well-sourced and verifiable it is. The mere idea that there are advocates and protesters who have points of view guarantees the presence of POV and opinion. What we see here is simply the systemic bias at work: The community agrees that there are answers to that question, and that the question as phrased can be definitively answered. Of course, the community does not realize that a neutral encyclopedia cannot address that question, but that did not matter to the authors of this article. I mean, I'm more liberal than many people, including the original authors of the article, but I'm also fair and honest, and this article needs to be deleted before people read it and notice that there is opinion in it. Encyclopedias should state the facts, not the truth as told by one side. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 07:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonecyclopedic: a collection of opinions about a hypothetical question. `'mikka (t) 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rhetorical flufflish nonsense. There are plenty of Left-leaning websites out there for people who wish to talk about how much they want to impeach Bush, and there are plenty of Right-leaning websites out there for people to talk about how much they want to beat up the people who want to impeach Bush. Wikipedia should neither lean Left nor Right- instead we should strive to provide truth and accuracy in all things. This article provides neither. Daniel Davis 07:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the persuasive arguments made by BD2412. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embargo until 2012. Maybe, one Presidency removed, Americans will be capable of constructing a NPOV article on a hot-button issue. Until then, this partisan horseshit makes us all look like morons. -- GWO
  • Merge to Movement to impeach George W. Bush., per MONGO (or delete). I was almost persuaded by BD2412, but I think Mongo is right - we could have multiple POV ridden aricles like this on the same grounds: such as Rationales to vote Republican in 2008 or even Rationales to be a Buddhist and then list all the reasons given by notable people. POV by the back door. --Doc ask? 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unencyclopaedic, original research, POV, and US-centric. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've de-transcluded this from the day's AFD page and linked it instead, as it's already 52KB and so will be ridiculously oversized by the time five days have passed. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Non encyclopedic. If the president gets impeached then you can write about it. The fact that it was posted and written now shows a POV bias by its creators. Dwain 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. KimvdLinde 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with movement article, and condense considerably. I changed my mind after seeing that this is the so maniest article that needs multiple pages to document a relative small topic. KimvdLinde 05:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as per MONGO. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious POV fork ➥the Epopt 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as an advocate of the impeachment of George W. Bush, I say merge back to Movement to impeach George W. Bush. There's nothing here that can't be covered in a brief bulleted list in the latter article; anything more than that is just indulgent POV-pushing. --phh (t/c) 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd love to impeach Bush, but I think both this article and Movement to impeach George W. Bush are clearly non-encyclopedic. Why can't people use a proper venue such as a forum, blog, or public sqare instead? -Halidecyphon 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as of here the tally is:
    • TOTAL of all delete/merge/redirect: 85 (also, 3 of the below votes also wanted to protect from recreation)
      • Delete: 59
      • Merge or Merge and Delete (effectively the same thing): 14
      • Merge or Delete or Delete or Merge: 9
      • Redirect and Delete: 1
      • Redirect and Merge: 3
    • TOTAL of all keep: 23
      • Keep: 18
      • Keep and cleanup: 3
      • Keep and rename: 2
    • TOTAL of all other: 3
      • Delete, Merge or Cleanup: 1
      • Embargo: 1
      • Neutral: 1
    —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do that. It gives a false impression. This VfD is much more fractional than "85 vs 23". Merge and delete are not the same thing. -- Stbalbach 18:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke out the votes by detail, so I don't understand what your issue is. I simply included this as an FYI for anyone interested as it is becoming difficult to count the votes. The reason I included a total for "merge/delete/redirect" is that they all effectively result in the article going away, just via different mechanisms, plus as indicated, many people included these together while the only vote that included both "cleanup" (keep) "delete" and "merge" was listed separately. The closing admin will need to determine consensus, not just vote tallies. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, there is, thus far, no consensus on this VfD. People are all over the map. A delete vote is not the same as a merge vote. You lumped them together to create a large block of 85 votes. There is no consensus block of 85 votes. In addition, there are rules about not doing this sort of thing. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Stbalbach is perfectly right; a nmerge vote is closer to a keep, since it is a decision that we want to retain the material (and therefore its edit history). AfD is not intended to enforce merges or redirects; that's normal editing, and a poll on them should be on the Talk page, not here. Septentrionalis 00
    08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: (Kind of a reluctant delete, but still). As the article stands now, it's a clear POV fork -- it states a bunch of reasons Bush should be impeached without any attempt to put those reasons in context or state the opposing view. I'm sure the editors are willing, in theory, to include the opposing POV, but I haven't seen even the slightest attempt to do so, and I'm skeptical over whether it could be done. Also "Rationales to impeach Bush" is inherently a POV-fork topic. I suppose "Rationales to impeach or not impeach Bush" wouldn't be, but if I created "Reasons to vote for John Kerry" or "Reasons to be sceptical about global warming", I think it would be a clear POV fork. TheronJ 22:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If editors would apply as much effort in the article as in trying to get it deleted, it would already be NPOV. The lack of attempt to balance the article, is by the same people favouring deletion on the grounds of POV. Coincidence?Holland Nomen Nescio 11:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The screenwriter William Goldman had a phrase he used to describe the futility of trying to clean up an inherently bad screenplay: he called it "washing garbage". That applies here: it's inherently POV, and all the scrubbing in the world won't change that. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article presents facts or opinions which are clearly attributed. NPOV is simply inserting other views. If we were to delete all "inherently" POV articles I would ask you to be consistent and start an AfD on all religion, scientology, atheist, politics, et cetera related articles. They all suffer from the same "inherently" POV.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What next? Oh, something like List of Republican sex scandals, probably. Clearly we have a reputation as a place to publicize hatchet jobs. - Nunh-huh 08:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work, not deletion. &#0151; JEREMY 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not and can never be encyclopedic. It's a POV soapbox, and looking at some of the support votes it seems some editors are fine with that. Unbelievable. Bring it back when Wikipedia has a Op-Ed section. Rx StrangeLove 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many controversial articles that criticize a subject and are claimed to be from a NPOV standpoint, such as Jesus-Myth and Criticism of the Catholic Church, and the list goes longer than there are hours in the day to search through "biased" articles. The Bush article is definetely going to be a POV vork, and many other articles are that concern a sketchy topic. Of course, one would represent a viewpoint whether choosing to vote to delete or keep. I'm choosing the latter and so has the consenses in the past two nominations of this article. (Notorious4life 05:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
And, relating to the comment by Sneftel above, I feel that those who vacuously vote by simply stating delete or keep should have their vote weighed less in the tallying process, especially if there is no explanation behind their vote. (Notorious4life 05:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You are wrong about the consensus in the 2nd nomination: there was a very strong preponderance in favor of delete prior to that vote being prematurely terminated. -- Curps 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I viewed the prior discussion and saw that Cyde violated Wikipedia rules and should have his administrator priviledges removed. His actions were only done so that he could protect the article and stall its inevitable deletion. Though my personal opinion is in favor of keep, I would never go against the consenses, even if it was against what I felt. Everone is entitled to their opinions on deletion matters, and I'm not one to go against that. (Notorious4life 07:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: The above 2nd vfd began life as AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

"initiated a bad faith RfC against Merecat,"

That attack is a fallacious attack, merecat WAS IN FACT operating IN BAD FAITH.
IMHO, ANY vfd that starts life as an attack should be stopped via the "No personal attacks" rule. I notice that republican game players are quick to whip out the rule once they attack you and you defend yourself, but the rule apparently carries no weight REGARDING VOTING ITSELF? What is this? Prometheuspan 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up as per User:Notorious4life. I find the whole subject ridiculous. However, the fact that there are reasons proposed for his impeachment, however ill-conceived, is of sufficient merit to record in Wikipedia. Just becasue we think an idea lacks merit is not a reason to delete an article about the idea. (Darn, I see on preview that I'm not logged in.) User:mikereichold72.15.212.126 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(signing earlier post)User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked the thing over again. Definitely expand criticism section or tackle each section point-by-point.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE. This article has no use except to attack Bush. While a respectable aim, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of its content can be put in the 'Movement to impeach George W. Bush' article, but the article cannot stay. Theonlyedge 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes this article is not NPOV. But the arguements are still notable. Merge is also possible, but right now the information is not covered that well in the main article, and it is already kind of long. I don't see how there are so many deletionists here though. Falphin 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because I'm a Republican shill. No, wait, that can't be right -- I actually have a $1.00 bet going that GW will be impeached before it's over. Still, Delete. Gathering together the negative side of a bunch of diverse topics and lumping them together into one article is not playing fair ball. All this information may be verifiable and found in reliable sources -- but let it all be reported in the individual articles on the disparate topics (as I bet it already is in almost all the cases). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "list of ..." page serves no encyclopedic purpose. The individual controversies already have their own articles. GW Bush already has his own article - an article that already includes a reasonably thorough discussion the controversies around his leadership. This page is a thinly veiled attack page attempting to imply a correlation between fundamentally unrelated incidents. Rossami (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For those of you advocating a merge, have you SEEN the size of the pages you're proposing this is merged to? The very reason this article exists, as far as I can tell, is because the Movement to impeach page (which has also been AfD'd...again...) was way too large. This is not a fork, it's a division per Wikipedia:Awareness statistics. Merging creates the size issue, and redirecting and protecting or deleting just encourages forks that are far more POV than this one is. -- Grev 05:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what I was thinking. How is it possible that this article is a POV fork when it is an extension from another article. How is the original article acceptable, but the division article is not? All of the deletionists fail to realize that this article is an extension of the original, because the original is too long. We're just abiding by Wikipedia standards for article size with this issue, because one article cannot house the allegations against Bush. The movement to impeach Bush is certainly a POV issue— there's no denying that, but this issue and its severity is definitely notable enough for inclusion in any encyclopedia. (Notorious4life 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment for those suggesting merge, please note that following this blatant misuse of AfD procedure, deletionists have spread their mission to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bushsecond nomination. How after 3 AfD's in one month, recruiting votes and now an AfD on the parent article, this can be seen other than a concerted effort to rid Wikipedia of any information detrimental to Bush (regardless of whether or not it is factual) is beyond me. It is evident that this entire process no longer is based on neutral observations regarding Wikipedia policy.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cecropia. There may well be rationales for anything; writing an article on each of them is inappropriate. Simply because the subject is notable and has gained significant attention does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia; in the same manner, an article called Rationales of why George W. Bush is the best president ever is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (besides having an utterly point of view title), even if there are many people who believe the fact and have well-documented books, pamphlets, or web sites advocating their views. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete How can an article like this possibly be encyclopeadic? Any article that starts with the word rationale automatically disqualifies itself for inclusion on WP. I suggest the authors keep their wishful thinking to themselves.--Kalsermar 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapid, quick, speedy, strong delete how can something like this EVER hope to pass for NPOV? ever? also, why do people keep removing my vote--Ham and jelly butter 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Second vote by this user, who is very likely a troll. -- Curps 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ansel and Moby Dick. Amcfreely 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, suspected sock puppet. Lapinmies 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but would almost certainly be open to a renaming. I don't envy the closing admin, as many of the above users are have very few, how shall we say, prior edits. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Article contains encyclopedic material, but is not, in its entirety, encyclopedic. I'm not against the presentation of the information as most of it is sourced, but gathering this specific information in this manner makes it an inherent POV Fork and a Soapbox. Most of the information is already available and explained in other articles on the subject. What isn't can be merged into the appropriate article.--WilliamThweatt 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally as of 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC): 86 delete 40 keep 21 merge 1 redirect

I left out some that were hard to interpret, like "Delete or cleanup"; and also the various superlatives in some votes To my mind, "merge" looks a lot more like "keep" than it does like "delete"; so it seems like rougly 86 delete, 62 don't delete. LotLE×talk hmmm... it appears the "don't make tallies" really is a guideline; I'm rather surprised since I've seen it so consistently violated. Well, call my strikeout amends. LotLE×talk 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "merge looks more like keep" seems to ignore the number of votes that include merge and delete together. Many of the merge voters indicate that there is some content that should be kept, but argue against this as a separate article, so I think your characterization is incorrect—certainly my merge vote should not be tallied in the "keep" column. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is article length rules require that the content is split. If it merges, it will split off again, inevitably, because the article will get too long. Kevin Baastalk 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "merge" does not necessarily mean "put this article in the other article word by word". If the merge option is chosen as the outcome of this AfD, it seems that that article will have to be made shorter by some other means - and there are other means, including not going into so much detail (which is okay because there are subarticles for every single issue) and splitting out something else, or a larger chunk (since most people object to this because it's so one-sided). I'd prefer the "brevity" solution, to be honest. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add tally boxes to the deletion page. - "Repeat offenders of the above may be subject to temporary blocking." -- Stbalbach 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article's premise is POV and non-encyclopedic. It's a collection of information arranged to try to support a certain opinion; in this case, that Bush should be impeached. Articles of such a nature do not belong in this encyclopedia. WarpstarRider 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I won't even bother rehashing the points above. GarrettTalk 10:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content belongs in each "main article" about each individual misdeed (NSA, Katrina, etc), if it isn't already there. What is needed in "Movement to impeach..." is merely a summary of the charges and a link to those articles. There is no need to reproduce those arguments from each NSA/Katrina/etc article in either the "Movement to impeach" or worse, this "Rationale to ..." article. --Mmx1 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article exists to push a POV and is far in title and content from the clinical tone and focus we should strive for. --Improv 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'd vote to delete or keep but why bother when we can infinitely re-list an article for deletion? --kizzle 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is real and sourced appropriately. I don't see how it's POV to document a certain groups opinions regarding this issue. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please stop trying to prematurely tally this as a "vote". WE ARE NOT VOTING! We are discussing the relevant evidence and arguments about this page. Attempts to show "vote tallies" just polarize the discussion and make it harder for us to reach consensus. Let the discussion run its course and let the process work. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recognize that as a "delete" voter, it is unfavorable to your position to let editors easily evaluate the fact that there is no consensus for deletion. However, in AfD's like this that have a large number of votes/opinions, a summary often helps editors get a sense of the patterns. LotLE×talk 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't add tally boxes to the deletion page. - "Repeat offenders .. may be subject to temporary blocking." -- Stbalbach 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not policy. It's a subpage on Wikiquette. Repeat offenders are only subject to temporary blocking for breaking Wikiquette where such violations qualify as incivility. Is there any logical reason not to keep a tally in this case? When there are six votes on the AfD, keeping a tally to say "Ohh snap there are two more delete votes than keep votes" is obnoxious. On a page with over 100 votes, a tally isn't rude, it's sensible. The closing admin will do one anyway; we might as well lend a hand. JDoorjam Talk 02:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My opinion in this particular debate is irrelevant. I would be telling you to stop these pointless tallies regardless of my position (and have done so many times in other discussions). Those attempting to force us into "voting" are ignoring our long-established precedents and abusing the decision-making process. Please go read (or reread) the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Yes, there are very strong reasons why we should not attempt to "help" the closing admin. We've tried it before and learned the hard way that it polarizes discussions and takes us further away from consensus, not closer. Rossami (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I tend to agree that an article called "rationales for..." is, in a way, inherently a POV article. however, that doesn't mean that some of the content of the article isn't important. Impeachment is hardly supported by "just left fringe groups" as has been suggested above (one poll put support for impeachment at over 40% - hardly fringe). I do think that the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush can be considered NPOV because the article is about the movement, the rationales behind that movement, instead of about the rationales themselves. Thus, my thought would be to merge with the movement article. FleetAdmiralJ 02:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has been said a dozen times by editors more eloquent than I, but this is simply not NPOVable. Any worthwhile content should be merged into Movement to Impeach etc., but saying that there may be shreds of usable content does not make this vote a keep vote by way of merge. As other users have implied, I'll explicitly say: given the choice between the two, I'd rather see this deleted than merged. With that said, if there are any useful pieces, pillage! pillage, I say! and then delete this mess. (91D, 41K, 22M) JDoorjam Talk 02:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cannot be WP:NPOV.--Dakota ~ 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heqs 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is impossible to bring to WP:NPOV along with many other points that have been brought up against this article's existance. Radagast83 08:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems vastly unencyclopedia to me - Wikipedia isnt a place to enumerate the arguments of everything topical. The article is clearly just a POV list "for the moment", and will be irrelevant and non-notable at the very time he either leaves office or a decision is reached on whether or not he will be impeached. Sometimes I wonder if everyone remembers this is about writing an encyclopedia rather a generic web site where we aim to collect all and every conceivable piece of information we consider notable at the time. Remy B 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138283516"