Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

2682:. 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? 2561:. 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. 423:

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.

2150:

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.

1393:

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.

2720:(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. ;-) -- 1432:

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.

3018: 2967: 2939: 2905: 2654: 2608: 2484: 2382: 2153: 1953: 1715: 1627: 1595: 1541: 1501: 1473: 394: 1985: 75: 1979: 111: 1990: 1826:

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.

1995: 1860:, 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 3081:, 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 1135: 2272:. 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. 3217:- 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 2091:(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. -- 1234:

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.

422:

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

1825:

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

1392:

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

1233:

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

482:

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

324:

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.

2954:

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

2378:

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

1770:

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

2691:

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

1843:

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

1431:

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

3293:

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

2149:

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

1363:

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

1212:

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

375:

This article is merely a soapbox for Knowledge (XXG) 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

3376:

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

2362:

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

2194:

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

1774:

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,

1743:

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

2729:

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.

2195:

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 Knowledge (XXG) for a while that is not biased, just plain factual.

1534:, 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: 2288:

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

2275:

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

349:

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 --

2987: 3581:, which is now protected against re-creation. Although disrupting Knowledge (XXG) 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 2260:

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

3289:

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

487:

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.

63: 3664:. 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. -- 344:

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

2230:

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.

1623:

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

3311:

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

2348:; 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. 1497:

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

1243:

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

1271:

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.

3540:

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.

402:

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

390:

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

2468:

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.

1257:

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

2328:

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.

2343:

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

3177:

I voted "keep but rename and cleanup" in the last AfD. The name has remained the same, and is fatally problematic - sounds like Knowledge (XXG) thinks these are reasons to impeach. It should have a neutral title, e.g.

1494: 1207:

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.

3513:

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 Knowledge (XXG) has a Op-Ed section.

3179: 1667: 2278:

do the work of finding externally documented facts such as, e.g., source X notes that the invasion of Iraq was legal under US law because it only consisted of "forceful operations" and did not legally constitute a

2250:- 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: 2218:: 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 1222:

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.

1213:

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.

2768:. 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. 3304:

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

1606:

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. --

3308: 3279: 2705: 1470:

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.

2103:. The article is not by nature of its topic unencyclopedic, so the proper course of action is to make it conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. There is no excuse for deleting articles based on their 2701: 2136:. 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 2716:, 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, 1642:(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 1775:

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.

1712:

Had you, and others, not misrepresented Knowledge (XXG) policy it would not be necessary to add a rebuttal (i.e. citing the policies as they actually are stated) to every incorrect assertion.

3457:. 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. 118: 2128:

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

2885:

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

2445:

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,

2713: 1654:

impeached. I recognize that there is a movement to impeach President Bush which is sufficiently notable for a Knowledge (XXG) article, so I'm not calling for the deletion of

3598: 3582: 3482: 1262:

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.

81: 2818:. 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. - 1864:. 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. 1373:

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.

306:

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. --

285:

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

2499:

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

1512:

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. --

3633: 3605: 3589: 3565: 3545: 3532: 3518: 3505: 3489: 3447: 3435: 3419: 3407: 3395: 3381: 3363: 3245: 3229: 3172: 3149: 3130: 3115: 3093: 3067: 3051: 3037: 2995: 2973: 2959: 2945: 2927: 2911: 2893: 2875: 2861: 2808: 2793: 2772: 2756: 2734: 2724: 2686: 2660: 2642: 2630: 2614: 2596: 2578: 2565: 2553: 2541: 2529: 2511: 2490: 2473: 2459: 2431: 2413: 2388: 2367: 2352: 2333: 2247: 2235: 2210: 2182: 2159: 2144: 2111: 2095: 2079: 2065: 2049: 2033: 2021: 1959: 1893: 1870: 1848: 1830: 1816: 1795: 1782: 1767:"Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Knowledge (XXG) articles are not: 1762: 1748: 1721: 1707: 1678: 1633: 1610: 1601: 1579: 1547: 1516: 1507: 1488: 1479: 1465: 1449: 1436: 1416: 1389: 1381: 1368: 1355: 1343: 1331: 1319: 1303: 1276: 1266: 1252: 1238: 1227: 1217: 1192: 1171: 1154: 1125: 492: 469: 449: 427: 411: 384: 354: 339: 319: 310: 301: 276: 241: 227:

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.

56: 1646:

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

1073: 939: 738: 604: 3077:

The various "rationales" are topics of discussion and controversy individually, and should be discussed as such; a list of such rationales should appear in

1006: 872: 805: 671: 2964:

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.

2588:

Needless rehash of controversies that are already covered under their own articles, with added POV and OR. Also per Bletch, Curps, 172 and Borghunter.

537: 1445:"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. 257:

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:

2398: 2125: 377: 3218: 3377:

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.

2549:. 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. 1163:

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 "

2379:

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.

1067: 933: 732: 598: 518:) 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) - 3578: 3004:

This is mostly POV if factual. Much of the material is well-covered elsewhere, and the article seems unnecessary as an encyclopedia entry.

2303:

be interpreted to mean that the rationales are correct. IMHO the following two options should remove concerns that the subject may be POV:

2042: 1889:

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--

1293: 1000: 866: 799: 665: 515: 369: 1906:

It is one of the sources used. Other sources that suggest impeachment are : Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee,

127: 2401:("it is an example of how a group of clever editors can follow the "letter of the law" and still use Knowledge (XXG) as their soapbox"), 272:

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. --

2850: 531: 442: 2363:

partisan nature of many of the resources is irrelevant. The partisan debate here has become "Noteworthy" enough to justify an article.

1364:

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.

157: 3618: 3297: 3273: 3139: 3082: 3078: 2886: 2783: 2717: 2693: 2345: 2285: 2133: 2088: 1857: 1840: 1671: 1647: 1639: 1561: 1557: 1458: 17: 3206: 1950:. Ignoring all the other sourcfes used in this article clearly is an overt attempt at introducing misleading statements in this AFD. 2197:

However, if any of you use this as an excuse to further harrass Merecat or anyone else, I will oppose you openly and relentlessly.

3473: 89: 2638:

All this is is Nescio, Kevin and Ryan's ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago.

97: 1778:

This VFD is just more gaming the system, partisan obstructionism, and manipulations and con artistry, and that is all it is.

1091: 957: 756: 622: 143: 1733:

referenced, but the references which do not directly relate to reasons for impeachment should be removed. Just to pick one

1024: 890: 823: 689: 3168: 3159:

as povhatebushcruft. It also smacks of OR. What shoudl hapeen is a huge pruneing and a merge into relivent articles. ---

2709: 2651:

By claiming I make the assertions and ignoring the multitude of sources used, you are evidently misrepresenting the facts.

1109: 975: 774: 640: 555: 1694:, obvious POV fork. Also, what is the story with like three users adding 20KB of text to this discussion? Presumably a 3197: 1042: 908: 841: 707: 3651: 3269:

as part of a wikipedia article, provided that it is written in an NPOV way and properly referenced to external sources.

36: 3553:

The subject of this article is clearly notable. It has a ton of citations. The only POV pushing I see is this AfD. --

2223: 1569: 573: 315:

On that ground, I agree with the reopening. Perhaps this didn't turn out to be a good occasion to bypass process... -

2003: 116:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

927: 3315:

So maybe it's worth asking these questions to both "keepers" and "deleters" and people not-so-easy-to-classify:

441:, the very informative talk page history for this article has been obscured. You can see the full history here: 189: 3650:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3557: 3392: 1061: 793: 726: 592: 509: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

994: 860: 659: 525: 3602: 3086: 2526: 1792: 335: 3341:

can be merged into another article without removing relevant content and state which other article that is?

2253:

it's a list of well-referenced, externally documented facts, and claims of facts NPOV-presented as "claims"

2011: 173: 147: 2749: 2639: 1931: 1758: 1245: 1056: 922: 721: 587: 3285:

A necessary criterion for merging into another page is page length - but the present page source text is

2902:

Had my quotation of wikipedia policy not been removed, you would have known POV is NEVER valid to delete.

1923: 1890: 1273: 1249: 1189: 1168: 989: 855: 788: 654: 505: 466: 132: 93: 3111: 3017: 2966: 2938: 2924: 2904: 2653: 2607: 2483: 2470: 2465: 2381: 2364: 2358: 2152: 1952: 1827: 1822: 1779: 1745: 1740: 1714: 1626: 1594: 1540: 1500: 1472: 1433: 1428: 1386: 1365: 1214: 1209: 1204: 1150: 520: 489: 484: 479: 438: 424: 419: 393: 1340: 85: 3530: 3463: 2731: 2593: 1812: 1754: 1446: 465:, a touch melodramatic don't you think? even most bot archived talk pages are done through pagemove-- 289:

the way I understand it. It's just about 70% which is borderline for AfD, and barely describable as

3515: 3432: 3107: 2805: 2538: 1675: 1607: 1576: 1146: 2845: 2030: 1734: 3064: 2872: 2820: 2016: 2008: 2000: 1943: 1927: 1915: 1085: 951: 750: 616: 331: 179: 110: 53: 3574: 2140:, but Nescio has been fighting on that point for about a month now and no progress can be made. 1560:

is too long to include the rationales, then the solution is to cut down that article. Note that

1018: 884: 817: 683: 3272:

some people suggest that relevant content from this article should be salvaged and merged into

2266:

This article is merely a soapbox for Knowledge (XXG) editors who want George W. Bush impeached.

549: 3444: 3164: 2076: 1703: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2855: 2317:, we're not doing neo-postmodernist-poststructuralist reading of hermeunistic narratives here 2270:

any article on a politician is a soapbox for electing or reelecting that politician to office

1461:, and the other material is also covered in the myriad articles on the issues in question. -- 3665: 3630: 3242: 2992: 2956: 2410: 2349: 2207: 2203: 1939: 1263: 248:

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

3126:. The impeachment idea isn't very popular and therefore does not need its own article. -- 2840: 2835: 2825: 2589: 2448: 2137: 2129: 1409: 1297: 437:

Due to a "page move" archive (rather than via "cut & paste") which was done tonight by

404: 64:

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

49: 3542: 3527: 3458: 2890: 2769: 2075:. Explains rationales in support of a historically important social movement.  2045:. The problem is not fixable by editing: this is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. -- 1808: 1666:

to be described and explained. Therefore, as a second choice, I would support a merger of

3621:. Is the main article too long? Cut it down: it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article 2936:

Had my citing policy not been removed, you would have known POV is NEVER valid to delete.

2830: 2452: 1296:

is a major time sink and an excellent poster child for why people need to read and study

1097: 963: 762: 628: 3597:. Some prat has repeatedly created throwaway accounts which were used to create article 1984: 1030: 896: 829: 695: 3562: 3554: 3502: 3416: 3123: 2802: 2683: 2299:

on the discussion page - IMHO the present title "rationales to impeach George W. Bush"

2232: 2108: 1867: 1804: 1663: 1643: 1565: 1328: 1224: 561: 381: 316: 298: 230: 100:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

3404: 3403:

Speculative article that amounts to heavily POV original research on a non-event. --

3060: 2790: 2627: 2550: 2428: 1378: 1316: 408: 351: 307: 273: 2955:

if you think flooding the debate with excess verbiage will be helpful to your case.

2923:

This is the textbook article people should refer to when pointing out POV problems.

1184:

None of that is vandalism, and the "attack" you keep talking about is my attempt to

1167:" in every single edit summary, that would be the person who just posted this list-- 3160: 3143: 3034: 3005: 2721: 2575: 2562: 2179: 2141: 2124:

has utterly thwarted other editors from making any improvements. He's even filed a

2092: 2062: 1947: 1935: 1911: 1699: 1413: 1352: 1300: 1235: 1122: 446: 207: 195: 163: 2323:- except that a simpler word than "purported" would be better, see previous point. 1978: 3182:. Unweildy, but clearly assigns the positions to identifiable individuals. Ergo, 3015:

Not covered, you will not find any explanation of the named reasons on wikipedia!

142:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3626: 3238: 3127: 3090: 3048: 3021: 2970: 2942: 2908: 2753: 2657: 2611: 2605:

How can a sourced article be OR. As to POV, that never is an argument to delete.

2487: 2481:

By reading the relevant policy which I cited above! How difficult is it to read?

2440: 2385: 2156: 2121: 1956: 1907: 1845: 1718: 1630: 1598: 1544: 1513: 1504: 1485: 1476: 1462: 397: 2206:

09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (I corrected my grammer above and boldified some text)

1844:

these rationales, and they should be given at least some room in this article.

3586: 2508: 2456: 2227: 2046: 1989: 1902:

Had the honourable commentator read the article he would know it is not about

1771:

use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."

3599:

Rationale for considering "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" encyclopedic

3583:

Rationale for considering "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" encyclopedic

3378: 3360: 3237:

Discussion not going your way? Stamping your feet and pouting won't help. --

3222: 2571: 2330: 2244: 1994: 1919: 1861: 1493:

The outsider bit is not a problem. Using arguments that were refuted in the

234: 3136:

Delete and redirect (with protected redirect to ensure against re-creation)

2199:

Let's all behave ourselves now and continue to work on this great article.

1584:

As discussed in the first failed nomination, why should this be limited to

2787: 1658:

article, but I am saying that the pro-impeachment movement does not need

1374: 1312: 3372:

Personal additional comment modifying my earlier comment - i think that

1638:

I'm not objecting to sources. What I am objecting to is the bloating of

3104: 3585:(which I hope will not be created as an article in its own right). -- 1134: 3357:

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

3180:

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

1744:

explicitly stated. That reference is relevant to the defense effort.

1668:

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

1674:

provided that the merger actually involved cutting the text down. --

1588:

page when Scientology, the Cartoon riot, Star Wars, et cetera havwe

2786:, which is overall much more neutral. This is a perfect example of 1865: 1858:

the rationale to impeach section in the movement to impeach article

1619:

Clearly, this is not what this article is about. It offers several

2219: 1188:

so you could actually see the article, not even content related--

3644:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3477: 3415:, per above; this article is pure unencyclopedic speculation. -- 2120:

In ordinary circumstances that can be true, but on this article

2058: 74: 1904:"The Center of Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment." 3309:

George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

3280:

George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

2706:

George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

2168: 431: 269:

Cyde protected this discussion on top of his improper closure;

105: 69: 3219:

Proposed rationales of the movement to impeach George W. Bush

2702:

George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States

1484:

Yup, I'm an outsider. And why is that a that a bad thing? --

3255:

It seems to me that there would probably be consensus that:

1133: 136:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1103: 969: 768: 634: 262:

This AfD stood for 27 hours. It is supposed to be up for

126:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

92:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 1036: 902: 835: 701: 229:

If you have any further questions please ask them at my

2406: 2402: 1115: 1079: 1048: 1012: 981: 945: 914: 878: 847: 811: 780: 744: 713: 677: 646: 610: 579: 567: 543: 3346: