From 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 restart this AfD without prejudice, given the events at WP:ANI. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The voting page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination). Please re-record or place a new vote there.


The result of the debate was Rename and cleanup POV — just because this article deals with a subject that is POV does not mean that it should be deleted, just that it should be cleaned up. If you have any further questions please ask them at my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

How do you get that result Cyde Weyes? I looked down the votes in my head and it looks like 32 delete and 14 keep?

I have reopened this Afd for discussion. I cannot comprehend admin Cyde's actions. He had violated two stated WIkipedia policies and possibly a third:

  1. This AfD stood for 27 hours. It is supposed to be up for at least five days before being opened up for admin action;
  2. Cyde protected this discussion on top of his improper closure;
  3. Cyde does not explain how he came to the conclusion that the article should be cleaned up when their was a clear consensus to delete. -- Cecropia 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place, but I don't see how 32 deletes and 14 keeps is a "clear consensus", at least not if you're using the word consensus the way I understand it. It's just about 70% which is borderline for AfD, and barely describable as supermajority, much less consensus. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Be that as it may, I wrote that before I realized that this was inappropriately closed after just 27 hours, so the point is now moot until five days have passed. -- Cecropia 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
On that ground, I agree with the reopening. Perhaps this didn't turn out to be a good occasion to bypass process... - GTBacchus( talk) 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not too sure about the closing early, but vote-counting as a reason to overturn another administrator's close is bloody stupid. You'd be better off taking it to DRV, where (hopefully) they'd tell you to pull your head in for promoting the incorrect view that the tally is in any way meaningful. AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 04:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Have you read anything that I said above? I did not reopen this because of the vote count, I reopened because it should never have been closed since the closing was clearly against policy. And if the vote was properly closed, Cyde needs to have explained why he ruled as he did. Does this kind of thing happen often at AfD? I would have had my head handed to me for such cavalier action at RfA. Ah, which brings me to "pull my head in". Oh my, do you think that could actually happen? I think perhaps you are a little fuddled, Mark. :D -- Cecropia 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

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

  • A vile and very not good faith assertion. You are well aware Merecat kept deleting things that were well sourced material. To say the RFC was an attack is ridiculous. All he has to do is stop deleting sourced material, and start discussing! Holland Nomen Nescio
    • Didn't you also call something I wrote "vile"? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're not a native speaker of English, but calling something or someone "vile" is fairly extreme, and in the context of a human being is a personal attack. -- Cecropia 00:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, merecat is the one who was operating in bad faith, and the RFC against him was founded on totally cogent grounds. Merecat was being abusive, was using ad hominem and straw man arguments, and was otherwise nitpicking over Alternet, despite the fact that Alternet is in this case and for these purposes a completely valid reference, due to its membership in the group of people at large who are making rationales for impeachment. Blue goose, you are just spewing bile ignorantly. You have made no edits, and are factually ignorant as far as i can tell about anything to do with the article. Your comments below to the effect that this is mostly from a "single book" are further evidence that you simply aren't paying attention and don't know what you are talking about. The facts are that millions of people think Bush should be impeached, and the article reflects a very broad set of citations to reflect this. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

*comment, a touch melodramatic don't you think? even most bot archived talk pages are done through pagemove-- 205.188.116.13 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Merecat, I apologize, i had not considered the evidenciary angle, and in no way meant to obscure anything. As a side note, I am surprised that you would want a page of noise showing that you are being a manipulative nitpicker using ad hominem and straw man arguments to be used as any kind of evidence. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I am sorry if i failed to follow some protocol. To the best of my knowledge the archive was done via the rules, via a page move to a an archive. All of this is now a digression, the full archived page has now been re-instated. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply



Please note: The above messagebox comment was left by 205.188.116.13 ( talk · contribs) who prior to tonight has not been editng this article. Also tonight, the article and talk page were both attacked by a anon IP vandal(s) - 172.161.95.79 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.144.146.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.162.34.245 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.128.225.123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 205.188.116.69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 138.87.141.196 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 205.188.116.138 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.150.130.38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.167.140.146 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Merecat 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

A cat may look at a king.
Ashibaka tock 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment, anyone who actually clicks on the contributions of any of those will see that the only pink elephant in the room is the one screaming "VANDAL, VANDAL, VANDAL ATTACK" in every single edit summary, that would be the person who just posted this list-- 205.188.116.13 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
None of that is vandalism, and the "attack" you keep talking about is my attempt to change the font size of the cleanup and NPOV templates so you could actually see the article, not even content related-- 205.188.116.13 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, the anon user did delete merecats attempt to restore the discussion page after my archive. The tinkering with the fonts almost ends up looking like "playing innocent" after the fact. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I'd be happy to look at the edit history, but my assumption here is that none of what was done was intended as any kind of vandalism, and that my attempt to make things easier and simpler prompted this user to delete my attempt and make their own. While I categorically reject the users right to delete my materials, and am thus at odds with them, it seems likely and probable that they were jsut trying to make the scene more livable. Its gotten to be noisy and messy looking. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what your point is about 205.188.116.13 not having edited the article. I haven't edited it either, but I would hope that my thoughts would not be discounted on those grounds. Anon users are users too. Mistercow 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My point is to draw attention to the concurrent arrival of that editor and all the anon IP editors who caused havoc there tonight. I make no assertions and I draw no conclusions, but I think that the correlation in the arrival times is worth looking at. Is 205.188.116.13 actually one and the same as the IP vandals of tonight? I don't know. To me it seems likely, but others here can decide that for themselves. Are some editors who are opposed to this AfD making edits as anons towards the aim of messing up the pages to obscure the edit history? That's an open question - one worth considering, I feel. Merecat 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
No, your point is to suggest that a change in font size is vandalism, and that all the mess that you made of it was some how justified by my evil acts of changing template font size, either way I'm just happy to have earned a mention is your "hit list", "cabal", "evil doers" page, or whatever you're calling it thse days-- 205.188.116.13 07:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The 172. IP addresses are AOL proxies and could be anybody; 205.188 is at Illinois State University and I would hope someone getting a taxpayer-subsidized education would have better things to do with his time than removing delete votes and calling it a minor edit. In any case, the admins who close AfD debates will give the anonymous votes and vandalism all the weight and consideration they deserve. Thatcher131 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think any investigation of vandalism should have any impact on this AfD discussion. That is a separate issue in itself. As a general rule, I believe anons have every right to comment on an AfD, but they may not vote in an AfD. 24.250.136.236 17:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Rationales to impeach George W. Bush is a major time sink and an excellent poster child for why people need to read and study WP:NOT Merecat 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An inherently POV soapbox. 172 | Talk 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per everyone else above. Pat Payne 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everyone-- Capitalister 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete per BlueGoose. -- RWR8189 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep Merecat and etc are just pov pushers of the republican agenda, and this is driven by that agenda. This article is a reasonable exploration of the factual rationales to impeach, which are now noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The idea that anybody arguing for impeachment needs to "read and study" is an ad hominem and silly; There are dozens of cogent reasons to impeach, and this is just a petty invalidation of those facts. Prometheuspan 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    The claim that "Merecat and etc" are Republican POV-pushers is ad hominem nonsense. I voted against GW Bush twice, his brother three times, and his father four times. 172 | Talk 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    Prometheuspan 22:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Do we really have this conversation here or elsewhere? Fine, I apologize for including you, since i don't know enough about you to know whether or not this is partisan antics. Merecat and Bluegoose on the other hand are known to me to be simple obstructionist republican game the system trolls. This is NOT a soap box, it IS a REPORT on the factual rationales of literally thousands of people in the USA and millions of people Globally on why Bush and Co should be impeached. That is a factual movement, and it is factually noteworthy, and it is not a soap box. If it were a soap box, it would be a very large soap box, it would have to be an intercontinental sized soap box. "Soap Box" is an invalidation and an ad hominem, and has no substance. So give me a REAL reason why you want the article deleted. reply
See WP:NOT. Merecat 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I have seen that page, and nothing on it makes a case against this article. It is a long page, by all means feel free to be more specific. I have copied and pasted one section here. "Not a Soapbox." This article is not a Soap box. It is a factual report about the rationales used by the movement to impeach. You have made no valid point. Nobody has offered a single cogent reason why the article should be deleted. Again. What is the REAL reason you want the article deleted? ANSWER; There is next to no way to defend against it. The rationales are grounded in fact. You don't have an argument, so you are gaming the system. I'd be happy to help you generate a defense argument. I can't promise it will be cogent, but at least it will provide a POV balance. Prometheuspan 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Extremely strong keep "This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-03-28. The result of the discussion was no consensus." This article is now linked to from Wikinews. Kevin Baas talk 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV soapbox, we already have Movement to impeach George W. Bush, and the other material is also covered in the myriad articles on the issues in question. -- Bletch 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Incorrect, this is not about the movement, but the exact reasons. For details sdee the first failed nomination. Your argument proves you have not been involved in any discussion pertaining to this page. Holland Nomen Nescio 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yup, I'm an outsider. And why is that a that a bad thing? -- Bletch 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The outsider bit is not a problem. Using arguments that were refuted in the first AFD and on the articles talk page is. Please review your arguments and read the relevant comments and you probably will have to make another observation than this. Beyond that, perceived POV is never an argument to delete. See the policies cited below! Holland Nomen Nescio 01:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Ummm, did you read my statement? The problem is not POV per se; its the fact that it is a POV soapbox. I've read your arguments, and they fail to impress me. -- Bletch 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Extremely and very ultimately strong keep, because voting to delete on the first chance you get without even having been part of any discussion is absolutely ridiculous. POV should be corrected, not delketed! Further, clearly there is no valid argument in wikipedia policy to delete. For those unfamiliar with the exact wording:

(Quotation from NPOV policy moved to talk page) Holland Nomen Nescio 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination. If Movement to impeach George W. Bush is too long to include the rationales, then the solution is to cut down that article. Note that Movement to impeach George W. Bush is already longer than the articles Andrew Johnson and Impeachment of Bill Clinton combined. -- Metropolitan90 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As discussed in the first failed nomination, why should this be limited to one page when Scientology, the Cartoon riot, Star Wars, et cetera havwe multiple pages? Holland Nomen Nescio 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • To avoid systemic bias in favor of current events. Note that the articles I cited don't attempt to mention every single politician and writer who ever called for the impeachment of Johnson or Clinton. -- Metropolitan90 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • You are thinking of the article "People suggesting impeachment of Bush." Clearly, this is not what this article is about. It offers several arguments in favour of impeachment, and to address the inevitable demand for censorship based on POV-OR allegations, numerous sources have been used to substantiate what is being presented. To object to sources is to invite a new AFD and it violates wikipedia policy. Holland Nomen Nescio 10:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not objecting to sources. What I am objecting to is the bloating of Movement to impeach George W. Bush (and the article under discussion here) with such excessive detail that the editors can't even fit the reasons why some people want to impeach President Bush into the "Movement" article. Note that Andrew Johnson covers that president's entire life from birth to death, including not just his impeachment but the rest of his presidency as well, in half the space used by Movement to impeach George W. Bush -- and Johnson actually was impeached. I recognize that there is a movement to impeach President Bush which is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, so I'm not calling for the deletion of that article, but I am saying that the pro-impeachment movement does not need two articles each twice the length of Andrew Johnson to be described and explained. Therefore, as a second choice, I would support a merger of Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush into Movement to impeach George W. Bush provided that the merger actually involved cutting the text down. -- Metropolitan90 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obvious POV fork. Also, what is the story with like three users adding 20KB of text to this discussion? Presumably a link to a well-worn policy would be sufficient? -- Deville ( Talk) 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Had you, and others, not misrepresented Wikipedia policy it would not be necessary to add a rebuttal (i.e. citing the policies as they actually are stated) to every incorrect assertion. Holland Nomen Nescio 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep referenced, but the references which do not directly relate to reasons for impeachment should be removed. Just to pick one [1] doesnt have anything to do with impeachment

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Not that i personally wouldn't love to have a defense reference so easilly impeached, but that reference is essentially relevant because it is being used to show that the Bush Admin wasn't responsible for the Katrina foul up. The problem here is probably that this isn't explicitly stated. That reference is relevant to the defense effort. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

-- Astrokey 44 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."

The article is NOT a soap box, it is in fact a report about a factual movement, and that movements factual rationales. If it was a soap box, one or two persons and their socks would be writing it from their own heads. This is a factual article, regarding factual events, and factual rationales, generated by factual and noteworthy groups of people, who are demonstrated to be factually noteworthy for the purposes of wikipedia by means of the creation of the "movement to impeach" article.

This VFD is just more gaming the system, partisan obstructionism, and manipulations and con artistry, and that is all it is. Prometheuspan 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Borghunter, I am pro impeachment and of the strong opinion that impeachment should be kept OFF of Mr. Bushes personal page. In fact, my opinion is that Mr. Bushes personal page should be treated in some senses as if it were his own virtual "user" page, and that information in that article should be confined to the facts as he might present them himself, were he the sole author. However much i may disagree with Bush or the admin, He is still the President of the United States Currently, and is deserving of a certain amount of respect. I believe that merging this article into Mr. Bushes personal article would be an unconsiable attack on his person. Prometheuspan 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep, mainly because Movement to impeach George W. Bush is already so long. The article does seem to be sufficiently sourced, but as a suggestion to help alleviate POV objections, maybe someone should expand the "Criticisms" section? It's rather small compared to the rest of the article, and clearly there are issues many Bush supporters would have with these rationales, and they should be given at least some room in this article. BryanG 03:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment From the rationale to impeach section in the movement to impeach article, it seems as if the entire basis of the rationales for impeachment article is based upon one book that was published by the Center of Constitutional Rights. If this is the case, then the most appropriate article should be a book review, if the book is notable. Aside from this article being a POV fork and a soapbox, it is looking to me as if this article is plagarism. Nowhere in the article for Rationales for impeachment do I see that the article is a mere summary of The Center of Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment. [2] BlueGoose 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment, you're the one who nominated it what else are you going to say? practiaclly the only edits you've made to wikipedia period were nominating this article, and voting in it-- 205.188.116.13 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete What can I say that hasn't already been said? — nath a nrd o tcom ( T • C • W) 05:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete POV soapbox. POV fork. Not encyclopedic. -- Tbeatty 05:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The problem is not fixable by editing: this is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. -- Curps 05:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Explains rationales in support of a historically important social movement. —  JEREMY 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Movement to impeach George W. Bush (but see my comment later for an alternative). Yes, before you jump on me, I KNOW that that was where this article was originally split off from. But its past history does not justify its existence. Put a short summary of each of the points into the main article. The rest, well, that's what blogs are for. -- Sneftel 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is not by nature of its topic unencyclopedic, so the proper course of action is to make it conform to Wikipedia's standards. There is no excuse for deleting articles based on their current state. Mistercow 07:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
In ordinary circumstances that can be true, but on this article User:Nescio has utterly thwarted other editors from making any improvements. He's even filed a RfC trying to stop me from making any edits there which oppose him. My main focus with Nescio has been to try to get his agreement to reduce the number of links. This was article was a WP:POV fork to begin with from Movement to impeach George W. Bush. If there is anyting worth keeping here, it can be re-inserted there. The only reason this article even exists is that it's an obvious large aggregate of POV links. The hugh number of links violates WP:NOT, but Nescio has been fighting on that point for about a month now and no progress can be made. Merecat 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
His relentless comments regarding my person are tiresome. Needless to say he once again misrepresents his actions. When Merecat deletes referenced material I object, which everybody else would. When he continues to delete and then refuses to discuss, I object. This editor undoubtedly has the best intentions, however it seems he has problems argumenting his case and therefore resorts to assertions, ad hominem attacks, and other behaviour not helpful. Regarding the links, it is a fine example of Merecat refusing to discuss. Further, for an editor that uses rightwing sources it is utterly hypocritical to object to leftwing sources. Beyond that, nobody prevents him from inserting rightwing sources. Last, nowhere in wikipedia can we find anything about how many references can be used. Alleging it does, again shows the technique of making misleading assertions. Holland Nomen Nescio 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep This article only claims to be exactly what it is titled: Rationales to impeach George Bush. And goes on to give exactly that, stated rationales to impeach George Bush. It is clear and easy to follow, it is thorough, although I could add some more reasons myself, and will after some research to substiantiate my claims. It states facts, something essential to an entry to an encyclopedia. It is well referenced. I say please keep it. It is one of the few politically oriented or controverisial articles I've seen on Wikipedia for a while that is not biased, just plain factual. However, if any of you use this as an excuse to further harrass Merecat or anyone else, I will oppose you openly and relentlessly. Let's all behave ourselves now and continue to work on this great article. Maggie thewolfstar 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (I corrected my grammer above and boldified some text) thewolfstar 09:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep: This article is vital to the Wiki's mission of making available a comprehensive store of noteworthy knowledge, which is by its very design quite at odds with the prevailing code of silence on matters related to crimes perpetrated by Bush and his military industrial complex cronies, e.g,, the sound bite oriented mass media and the Bush administration's massive campaign to classify government and presidential records, seemingly for the very purpose of delaying or preventing access to documents substantiating the overwhelming rationale to impeach Bush. Ombudsman 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep + suggest NPOV title change Boud 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) - my involvement or lack thereof: AFAIR i have not edited this page (i checked the last 500 edits) and i'm fairly sure at best i made only minor edits. Reasons: i agree with Thewolfstar - my general impression is: reply
    • it's a list of well-referenced, externally documented facts, and claims of facts NPOV-presented as "claims"
    • the nature of the content is political, but so is the article about any politician - s/he is important because s/he has political power - all the more importantly that ordinary citizens can work together to document facts (except for personal data like address and sex life) related to that politician
    • BlueGoose wrote: This article is merely a soapbox for Wikipedia editors who want George W. Bush impeached. The same argument could say that any article on a politician is a soapbox for electing or reelecting that politician to office. We do not delete articles on Bush, Clinton, Clinton-Rodham, Kerry, Blair despite the fact that these articles, in some sense, constitute soapboxes. Instead, we NPOV individual sentences and the page structure, if needed, in order that we have NPOV presentation of externally documented, "verifiable", no-original-research facts.
    • My impression from the discussion page is that the people objecting to the article are unable or unwilling to find externally documented claims that individual "rationales" for impeaching Bush are false. Rather than deleting the page, i would suggest that people unhappy with the page do the work of finding externally documented facts such as, e.g., source X [reference] notes that the invasion of Iraq was legal under US law because it only consisted of "forceful operations" and did not legally constitute a "war" - (this is just a fictional example).
    • the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article is too long to include the rationales there - people involved in that movement may be morally and/or legally justified, they may be morally and/or legally wrong, but the fact is that they are active in the movement - splitting their reasons (rationales) into this article makes sense
    • NPOV title change: look for Ad 1 The title on the discussion page - IMHO the present title "rationales to impeach George W. Bush" could be interpreted to mean that the rationales are correct. IMHO the following two options should remove concerns that the subject may be POV:
      • Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment - reasons is a more common word than rationales, we're not doing neo-postmodernist-poststructuralist reading of hermeunistic narratives here
      • Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush - except that a simpler word than "purported" would be better, see previous point.
    • Both of these make it clear that wikipedia neither asserts that the rationales/reasons are valid nor that they are invalid, only that various people (listed in the "movement" article) have stated or cited these reasons. Boud 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this ridiculous article. As I said in the first Afd, there is no way this can be NPOV. Every so-called source is highly partisan, and is interpreting events in GWB's presidency to fit their POV. Maybe I should start Rationales that liberals are ruining the country; I'm sure I could find enough sources to fit the model of this article. I'm sure this debate will end in no consensus like the last one. Monicasdude gets banned for using rough language while rescuing articles and this gets kept. Oh well. Thatcher131 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) This >can< be Npov. It isn't right now, and that is why we need your help. I would be happy to participate in the defense side of the article you propose, and the fact of the matter is, the Republican efforts of propaganda against the "liberals" is noteworthy enough to justify such an article. The partisan nature of many of the resources is irrelevant. The partisan debate here has become "Noteworthy" enough to justify an article. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply


  • As I said on the talk page 40% is legal analysts, 40% is MSM and ONLY 20% is leftwing oriented, you saying otherwise is misleading and dishonest. Please, show what part of the article is incorrect! It is NOT! Since the use of biased sources is not prohibited, much less POV being a valid argument to delete, you will have to accept that, in stead of annoying yourself, you could try and balance the article with information you think it needs. Holland Nomen Nescio 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I stand by my views here ("it is an example of how a group of clever editors can follow the "letter of the law" and still use Wikipedia as their soapbox"), here and here. Thatcher131 15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete Per Mercat this feels like soapboxing to me Aeon 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Nomen Nescio said above: You are thinking of the article "People suggesting impeachment of Bush." Clearly, this is not what this article is about. It offers several arguments in favour of impeachment,. How can such an article be reconciled with WP:NOT and WP:OR? EricR 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Reconciliations with those issues are easy and have been made here and at the discussion page. If you require further explanation on how those reconciliations work, I will be happy to be of service. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • By reading the relevant policy which I cited above! How difficult is it to read? Holland Nomen Nescio 17:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't this a reasonable opinion? Since my reading comprehension seems to be in question, maybe you could tell me: does the relevant policy support an article which offers serveral arguments in favor of impeachment rather than reporting the arguments of notable people suggesting impeachment? EricR 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article is entirely opinionated.-- Conrad Devonshire 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Very very very POV Soapbox. -- Strothra 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to be nothing more than the documentation of the rationales of others, hardly a pov soapbox. Don't see any valid rationale to delete. Gamaliel 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's already gone up for AfD and failed due to lack of consensus -- less than a month ago! This is a waste of time. Additionally, this article covers some important information - for those of us going, "what? people are trying to impeach Bush?!," it's a handy list. And before you bash me or go ad hominid, I'll admit: I'm a registered Democrat, and I don't like Bush. However, what I do like are well-researched explanations of the rationale behind current events, and that's what this is. It's not original research because these are the reasons cited by those in the movement (which, I do believe is a bit extreme, but they are people of prominence), and it's not POV for the same reason. Janet13 16:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Needless rehash of controversies that are already covered under their own articles, with added POV and OR. Also per Bletch, Curps, 172 and Borghunter. Not a political blog (for *either* side!). MilesVorkosigan 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How can a sourced article be OR. As to POV, that never is an argument to delete. Holland Nomen Nescio 17:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I say its a fine article Czolgolz 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All this is is Nescio, Kevin and Ryan's ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Morton devonshire 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • By claiming I make the assertions and ignoring the multitude of sources used, you are evidently misrepresenting the facts. Holland Nomen Nescio 17:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vote totals to current: Pardon me if my counting is off, but I have 13 keep, 20 delete, and 1 merge. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and maybe this may not be the best Wikipedian thing to do, but is there some middle ground where we can find consensus. Common sense tells me the last thing we need is a page that is not worthy for an encyclopedia, which is exactly how I feel about this article, and the mere removal of tags will not improve the quality of the article because the tags are there for a reason. On the other hand, the positions of the keeps who have not been editing on this page (which I would say is 7 keeps approximately) is intriguing. The one idea that I'm interested, though I'm not totally convinced yet with, is a page rename. Would this alleviate the problems with this article or is this article totally unsalvageable? BlueGoose 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm the only merge? Weird... I could've sworn I saw a few others. Perhaps they were from the earlier nom. Anyways, I think a page rename would help in that the name itself is arguably POV, but that's not the only problem with the article. The larger problem, as I see it, is that it is in some ways the completion of a POV fork which was begun with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. So here's my other suggestion: Merge to articles such as George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States, George W. Bush administration, Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, etc., to the extent that the information in this article is not already represented in those. Together, these articles make up an appropriate place for the information; once it's been distributed, Movement to impeach George W. Bush (which strikes me as already the only claim this page has to not being an OR essay) can simply link to sections within those articles. Each point will then be packaged with its context, and redundancy will be sharply reduced. I realize that this is probably the most time-consuming by far of all the suggested options, and will cause reverberations in those subsidiary articles as an NPOV equilibrium is reestablished. But any Wikipedian editing a GWB* article knew what he was getting into. ;-) -- Sneftel 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Would support this. Not all of the information is bad, much of it would be appropriate in the correct article (i.e. one that was not an obvious political rant). The way this information is grouped and presented now clearly fails the 'would any encyclopedia ever include this article' test. MilesVorkosigan 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Morton devonshire& others above. -- Mhking 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge. Well sourced information, and it's a notable movement. The fact that it's also partisan and hasn't a chance to succeed is not relevant - - a few cranks aren't notable, but a few crank congress-critters are. AnonEMouse 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am supposedly as liberal as they come. This is not about politics — it is about building an encyclopedia. This article helps nobody and hurts us as a community. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 19:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Hugely POV, peurile. I am personally one of those folks with Zero respect for GWB BTW - but this page is a silly POV Fork that reflects the worst of WP. Some may be mergeable into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Bridesmill 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Had my quotation of wikipedia policy not been removed, you would have known POV is NEVER valid to delete. Holland Nomen Nescio 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is the textbook article people should refer to when pointing out POV problems. Kyaa the Catlord 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Had my citing policy not been removed, you would have known POV is NEVER valid to delete. Holland Nomen Nescio 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Your quotations were simply moved to the talk page which is the more appropriate place for an extended discussion. I think you will find that most of the people who frequent AfD are more than familiar with the relevant policies and a simple link is more than enough. You can certainly replace them if you think flooding the debate with excess verbiage will be helpful to your case. Thatcher131 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The mere fact that POV is the single most used argument, proves that policy is not known to commentators. As you well know POV is NOT a reason to delete. Holland Nomen Nescio 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion moved to Talk page Thatcher131 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete or Merge This is mostly POV if factual. Much of the material is well-covered elsewhere, and the article seems unnecessary as an encyclopedia entry. Umdunno 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not covered, you will not find any explanation of the named reasons on wikipedia! Holland Nomen Nescio
  • Merge per Sneftel's above discussion. -- ElKevbo 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per CorbinSimpson -- rogerd 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete please — Dan | talk 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge The various "rationales" are topics of discussion and controversy individually, and should be discussed as such; a list of such rationales should appear in Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which (by definition) advances them. Pulling these items into this omnibus article promotes duplication and encourages POV by removing them from the debate at the primary articles. If there's any verifiable information here that isn't covered in the individual articles, merge it to them. Otherwise, delete, and link the list of rationales at Movement to impeach George W. Bush to individual articles, such as Extraordinary rendition. Choess 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as povhatebushcruft. It also smacks of OR. What shoudl hapeen is a huge pruneing and a merge into relivent articles. --- J.S ( t| c) 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I voted "keep but rename and cleanup" in the last AfD. The name has remained the same, and is fatally problematic - sounds like Wikipedia thinks these are reasons to impeach. It should have a neutral title, e.g. Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush. Unweildy, but clearly assigns the positions to identifiable individuals. Ergo, rename and cleanup OR delete. BD2412 T 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill this AfD - 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. This is absolutely ridiculous. We just need to fix the name on this article to something more NPOV, as it is already very well-sourced. How about something like Proposed rationales of the movement to impeach George W. Bush. -- Cyde Weys 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I wouldn't mind if this thing gets relisted... Discussion not going your way? Stamping your feet and pouting won't help. -- Calton | Talk 05:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Attempt at synthesis so far. It seems to me that there would probably be consensus that:
    • Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush is a subject which should be somewhere as part of a wikipedia article, provided that it is written in an NPOV way and properly referenced to external sources.
    • some people suggest that relevant content from this article should be salvaged and merged into Movement to impeach George W. Bush
    • some people suggest merging into George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States or similar
    • A necessary criterion for merging into another page is page length - but the present page source text is 42 kbytes long right now (according to mediawiki), so would require removing a huge amount of material, especially since there would also be the material of the page into which this would be merged. i don't see any easy NPOV way of condensing the article by such a big factor.
    • Given such a sensitive subject - after all Bush is the president of the world's most powerful military State - surely any claims of reasons why Bush should be impeached need to be referenced, so removing the references - which are a big part of the article source text - would be dangerous for any chance of consensing on NPOV.
    • Movement to impeach George W. Bush mostly concentrates on the people and groups or organisations who are trying to impeach Bush - dividing this up from the actual reasons they allege are valid to impeach Bush seems reasonable to me - i don't see any other obvious solution
    • pages like George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States are bound to get longer in the future since (even if an impeachment process gets going) he's going to be president for quite some time yet - i don't see how there's room to fit in an extra 42 kbytes somehow thinned out without removing relevant material.
    • So maybe it's worth asking these questions to both "keepers" and "deleters" and people not-so-easy-to-classify:
      • Does anyone claim that Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush should not be documented in any wikipedia article?
      • Can anyone explain (with some level of detail) how Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush can be merged into another article without removing relevant content and state which other article that is?
      • Does anyone object to renaming the present article to Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush?
        • BD2412's suggestion of Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush seems like a good idea too - long, but clearly NPOV. Boud 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Personal additional comment modifying my earlier comment - i think that some of the article needs to be more NPOV-ed - there are some statements that are POV or borderline POV. But this is not a reason for deleting the article, it's a reason for making small appropriate edits, doing things step-by-step and discussing them on the discussion page if there's any chance that they'll be controversial. And it's something which can probably happen more constructively if there's agreement on an NPOV title of the article. Boud 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious POV fork-- Ham and jelly butter 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Speculative article that amounts to heavily POV original research on a non-event. -- Cecropia 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above; this article is pure unencyclopedic speculation. -- Aquillion 03:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename -- waffle iron  talk 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete you people crack me up, happy editing-- IworkforNASA 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article can never be more than POV fork,and by definition of the title, original research. Even with a better title, allowing scholarly sources, it still would be highly POV. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Rename and block the vote stackers. Guettarda 04:00, 4 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 04:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Agree that this is a POV soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The merge proposal is to merge with the article on the movement to impeach; an article of equal (and probably excessive) length. with virtually no overlap. Both articles should exist, and should be fixes if POV; not that they will be. Septentrionalis 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Very strong keep The subject of this article is clearly notable. It has a ton of citations. The only POV pushing I see is this AfD. -- noosph e re 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As pure WP:POINT, someone created Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, which is now protected against re-creation. Although disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is never a good idea, the intended point was quite valid. Some good editors are letting partisanship get the better of them in order to tortuously try to construe a Rationale for considering "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" encyclopedic (which I hope will not be created as an article in its own right). -- Curps 04:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Some prat has repeatedly created throwaway accounts which were used to create article Rationale for considering "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" encyclopedic. This is now protected against recreation. Snottygobble 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete outright or Merge into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Is the main article too long? Cut it down: it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article summing up a subject. -- Calton | Talk 05:07, 4 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.
  • Strewth. Do none of you people have anything better to do than indulge in partisan bickering? No wonder the American political system is so irrevocably broken that rather than "the best and brightest" you get Bush and Clinton. God help the rest of the World. -- GWO
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146620610"