Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:12, 22 October 2006

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Procedural nom. It was placed by 72.255.99.114 who could not create a new page with the reason this is simply a long partisan editorial and inappropriate in an encylopedia. Previous AfD is here --Wafulz 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily verifiable and notable and encyclopedic. Maybe POV, I don't know, I haven't read the article (which is about 3x too long), but this is a well-documented topic in politics. --Wafulz 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and significant. Lots of information and references; although the diction and content is POV, the title of the article implies a certain bias and can easily be fixed. Wikipediarul e s 2221 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the initiator of this request (sorry I didn't format afd correctly - thanks for fixing it wafulz). This article reads like an editorial or a partisan blog (left or right). This isn't a movement like Civil Rights Movement or even something small, it is a highly partisan effort. If congress takes this up in even a minor way, then document it. Right now, this is just a purely POV effort that belongs on Kos or some other political web site. 72.255.99.114 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument that has been addressed countless times in the talk page - where else on Wikipedia do we document efforts to impeach GWB? Please use the talk page as a first step, and also review prior AfD discussions, as was suggested before making an AfD. Also, the article does not "read like an editorial of a partisan blog" nor is it a "partisan effort", many people on both sides of the isle have worked hard on it over many years time. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is actually the third AfD, the last one being 5 months ago:

First nomination, 31 July 2005.
Second nomination, 12 May 2006

This is obviously a controversial topic - a lot of people have spent a lot of time and energy to make the article NPOV. Just about every argument and complaint that anyone could possibly come up with has been addressed in the talk page over 100's of man-hours of discussions. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is a distinction between NPOV and fair and ballanced. NPOV is the use of neutral language. It is easy to talk about a partisan issue in a neutral tone. Fair and ballanced is where you try to represent both sides equally. But what does that mean? Do you give both sides equal time? Do you give each side equal time proportional to their contribution? After all the 'pro bush' side is not participating in the 'debate'. What if their are multiple sides, how do we calculate what is the right ballance? NPOV is something that can be achieved, it can be argued at the level of individual sentences and phrases. Fair and ballanced is just a matter of opinion. We will never satisfy everyone with such a rule rule, so wikipedia doesn't have it, and rightly so. Mozzie 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (What the heck is a "speedy keep"?) Skimming over it (I agree it's too long), my assessment is, while this article may need NPOV improvements, it doesn't seem to be an article promoting the movement. Rather, it appears (to me) to be an article about the movement. Articles about a partisan effort are still valid for an encyclopedia. =Axlq 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Speedy Keep is when an article is kept before the usual mimimum of 5 a days or more for debate has passed. --65.95.17.190 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Forget about George Bush. Not important. What important is that this is a great article and is definetly verifiable as most of these movements were reported by national media.

The only reason I could think of to delete this article is its probable POV statements. But that's something needs to be worked on, not a reason to delete the article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, cited and sourced out the wazzu. Nominator confused about the meaning of "editorial." Gazpacho 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is an ugly page, it desperately needs cleaning up, but there is absolutely no reason to delete it.Mozzie 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an awfully slanted article because of its reliance on pro-impeachment sourcing and lack of anti-impeachment sourcing. But POV cases are never hopeless. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch anything in the entire, looooooong article casting doubt on the move to impeach or showing that it is advocated only by a fringe of the Democratic party in Congress. The article is warped. Nevertheless, deleting it isn't the answer, straightening it out is.Noroton 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a pretty shoddy looking page...and doesn't really justify its own existence. It basically just rattles off opinions of individuals ad infinite...which may violate Wikipedia's provision on indiscriminate information, which is all that the page really is. There isn't really much information about the "Movement to Impeach Bush"...just people that want to. The opinions of his political opponents don't necessarily comprise a movement, nor justify its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 08:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a valid and encyclopedic article, POV concerns should be discussed and worked out amongst editors. --JaimeLesMaths 09:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow! I stumbled into this AfD ready to argue for deletion. Once I looked at the article and its amazing reference section, I changed my mind. --Arbeiter 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a page to post partisan opinions. When someone does post something to contrary, its reverted. Look near the end of the talk page where you find...

"It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan"

"Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baas"

In other words, if something isn't part of our movement, don't put it here. Could you imagine a print encyclopedia putting in articles of this partisan and short-term nature? 72.255.99.114 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a specific movement. Stuff that isn't about the movement doesn't belong in the article. Criticisms of the movement do belong in the article. A lack of inclusion of criticism is a fixable POV problem, not reason to delete. Being of a short-term nature isn't reason to delete either, especially since any movement to impeach a president will have historical relevance in the future. -Amatulic 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this entry, courtesy Google, in my research on the subject of impeachment, and found the content the most comprehensive of all the Search finds I have checked so far. The content is factual and balanced in listing pro-con views on the subject. The entry may be revised or complemented, but should NOT be deleted. I strongly recommend that the entry be removed from the deletion candidacy.

Delete. A collection of criticism by obviously partisan opponents should not warrant an article, and it probably violates Wikipedia's legal policy for libel. --GoodSamaritan 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where else on Wikipedia do you suggest we document the people and groups who want to impeach GWB? -- Stbalbach 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I was not clear. I did not suggest move or merge. I said delete. It is unsalvagable. --GoodSamaritan 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by a mile and then some, even though it has severe POV issues certainly verifiable and well referenced. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is worthy of an article. --Alex (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to previous afd discussion - While I'm not sure about the article has a netural POV, the bottom line is that this article has already survived the AFD process. So unless something significant has changed it should be kept for consistency with the prior discussions. Once a decision on afd is made it's a bad idea to keep renominating the article unless something major has changed; otherwise there's no actual closure from these discussions. Dugwiki 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no Bush fan but this is notable enough to keep.--Lord of Illusions 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable per the many scientific polls showing public report in the 30's, about the same level as his present approval rating, and numerous articles abut it in national media. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 36 co-sponsors of impeachment resolution H. Res. 635. Ninety- something references. It is extremely unlikely to happen without some changes in the House and Senate and even then some "smoking gun" beyond what is cited so far as grounds. NPOV or unsupported statements should be deleted or fixed, and arguments against impeachment should be included, even if by proponents.Edison 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a VERY notable topic. I would sooner delete the article about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations than I would delete the article under discussion. The movement to impeach GWB is very real and has garnered the support of hundreds of people. Btw, the moon landing article is also important; don't misunderstand. 129.98.197.86 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly this article will be kept, but I find it pretty disturbing. It smells like a POV fork. Even a well-sourced repository of complaints about Bush is...a repository of complaints about Bush. The "impeachment resolutions" are presented as much more high-profile than they really are. The vast majority of even the most liberal groups don't advocate anything of the sort. Things like "The ImpeachBush.org website claims to have collected over 736,000 signatures (as of September 25, 2006) on a petition to impeach Bush. None are known to have been created to oppose it" feel like weasel words -- could the reason be, perhaps, that this movement is so low-profile that no one would bother to oppose it? I don't see any petitions opposing the movement for the violent overthrow of the US government either -- is this evidence for the movement's success? Of course not. The "rationales for impeachment" section is no better -- this title really just seems to be an excuse to make the article Why Bush sucks and not have it deleted. I am by no means a fan of Bush, but I am not a fan of weaseling POV into Wikipedia either. -Elmer Clark 02:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see "POV fork" thrown around quite often in AfD's -- but you can't label it a "fork" without saying where it forked from. If not here, where else on Wikipedia do we document the people and organizations who want to impeach GWB? If we did it in the George W. Bush article, it would be too large and would justify a Main article split. That's all this is. In fact, this article was originally created (year or two ago) because the amount of material was overwhelming the GWB article causing a POV unbalance in that article. There was no intentional foul-play ("POV fork") by anyone it just evolved organically like most articles on Wikipedia do when the subject matter becomes long. -- Stbalbach 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not a literal POV fork, but it just feels like the "negative" aspects of the George W. Bush article were thrown together here with the weak connection that they're potential grounds for impeachment. -Elmer Clark 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be original research. The article is sourced pretty well. This is a real phenomenon. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the idea behind POV forking needs some explination. It is where two different parties disagree on a topic so one starts up a new page to express their views. For this article to be a POV fork there would have to be another page on the movement to impeach President Bush. If that page doesn't exist, then this is not a POV fork 150.203.177.218 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but RENAME I really thought I was going to be in favor of deletion when I saw the name of this article. The name doesn't do the article justice. By the way, I personally disagree with almost all the politics of the people described in the article, but I am aware that they are really out there, really vocal, and they have had a lot of activity in the public life of our country. maybe call the article "Campaigns to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against President George W. Bush." That might keep the title from implying that there is one significant "movement" of people who are all working together. We know that's not so.OfficeGirl 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, the title as it is makes the original assertion that there is a particular movement, rather than a number of disparate people who all happen to want the same thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but agreed that the article needs cleanup and a thorough NPOV bath. Johnbrownsbody 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.130.196.68 (talk • contribs) .
Delete: This article is just a political maneuver, will we need articles for every single politically driven crusade? This would never, ever, make it into an off-line encyclopedia. It's not even a real movement, just a bunch of opinions. 148.63.236.141 01:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my above comment, looking at the history of this article, it also looks like its been carefully kept POV for a long time. The previous AFD discussion also has comments regardings pov, yet when someone tries to edit it, they get yanked unless they are "the movement". This article belongs on a blog. 148.63.236.141 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Wikipedia do you suggest editors document the people and activities and headline news stories about this topic? Or do you propose we play whack-a-mole and remove it whenever it pops up in other articles (like it used to before this article was created)? Who do you propose will monitor this whack-a-mole activity, should we have a special Project set up for the purposes of censoring this information from all Wikipedia articles? Or do you think it makes sense to isolate it into a single location where it can properly be monitored? In other words, these activities are real, they exist, people will write about them, you can't stop that - but you can isolate and monitor it. -- Stbalbach 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feature this article! Anomo 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, having an article on this notable, verifiable movement is not POV. If we deleted this we would need to delete (for example) Civil Rights Movement and Women's suffrage, since both of those are verifiable articles about notable political movements. Cynical 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. duh. Kevin Baas^talk 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article has POV problems and needs cleanup, but the topic is valid. Erall 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Wiki's 'book burners', who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas are at it again. The movement exists. It's well documented. IMHO, AfD nominations like this, and the one on Andy Stephenson are travesties and the ultimate abuse of Wikipedia. Reign this XXXX in before it destroys a great idea. Some Wiki Conservatives have come full circle to become 21st century Wiki Stalinists!NBGPWS 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 *'''Speedy keep.'''  duh. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Weak keep''' The article has POV problems and needs cleanup, but the topic is valid. [[User:Erall|Erall]] 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Speedy Keep'''.  Wiki's 'book burners' who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas are at it again. The movement exists. It's well documented. IMHO, AfD nominations like this, and the one on [[Andy Stephenson]] are travesties and the ultimate abuse of Wikipedia. Reign this XXXX in before it destroys a great idea. The Wiki Conservatives have come full circle to become 21st century Stalinists![[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy Keep'''.  Wiki's 'book burners', who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas are at it again. The movement exists. It's well documented. IMHO, AfD nominations like this, and the one on [[Andy Stephenson]] are travesties and the ultimate abuse of Wikipedia. Reign this XXXX in before it destroys a great idea. Some Wiki Conservatives have come full circle to become 21st century Wiki Stalinists![[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)