Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morton devonshire (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 5 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:55, 5 May 2006 by Morton devonshire (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

Note that this article is not titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush". So whether or not there is or is not "serious discussion on The Hill about beginning these processes" is completely irrelevant to this article, which is about reasons for impeachment, not the movement for impeachment. Those reasons certainly do exist and are notable, quite apart from whether the movement for impeachment exists or who may or may not be participating in it. -- noosphere 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
They are not notable when these so-called "rationales" are espoused by fringe leftist groups and do not reflect any significant body which can impact the situation in any way. --Strothra 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete given that the main article this was split from, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, is far too long and needs to be cut down so that article can include the rationales, and I don't think that voting for a merge would achieve that. Nevertheless, as a second choice I would support a merge if the parent article were cut down significantly so that Misplaced Pages doesn't just wind up with one double-length article. Note that the title of this article has been changed to Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - But I most definitely will be keeping an eye on this one. Cyde Weys 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This article is a POV fork. The relevant information already exists in Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --RWR8189 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete The list of rationales for impeachment is given at Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Each section of the article is covered in greater detail in several other articles (NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Bush-Blair memos, and so forth). The only function served by the current article is to create summaries of those articles (offering an opportunity to introduce POV) and install a level of indirection between Movement to impeach George W. Bush and the primary description of the events which have motivated the movement. Verifiable information which is not included in those other articles linked under the section headers should be merged to the appopriate articles, and the current article deleted; the page on the movement can point to those articles directly. Choess 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Delete, redirect, and protect against recreation This article is just a soap-box for people who don't like Bush. It is an inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Also, I don't know exactly what Mailer Diablo means by "vote stacking", but no one has been able to provide any policy link that says people can't recruit additional participants to an AfD. Sock-puppetry is prohibited. Get out the vote campaigns are not prohibited. Johntex\ 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I define it as Meatpuppetry. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is not against WP policy, how ever much some people may not like it. Johntex\ 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • How about It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article (quote from official policy on sockpuppetry, more on the subject in that same paragraph.) Is this policy real and applicable? Weregerbil 09:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It's valid, just not applicable. That quote is from a section titled Advertising and soliciting single-purpose accounts. It reads in context "It's also inappropriate to invite 'all one's friends' to help argue an article. Soliciting people to create accounts for the purpose of arguing on your side is not an acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages." The policy is about recruiting your-off wiki friends to come create a single purpose account. That hasn't happened here, so that policy is not on point. Johntex\ 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Meatpuppetry means a person recruiting other people on an online forum or something of that like, not asking established WP members to comment, at least in my interpretation of the definition. BlueGoose 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Which is serious weaselwording (WP:WEASEL). I don't see anything so very special about stacking an AfD vote with people who would otherwise never notice a debate (outsiders) as opposed to stacking an AfD vote with people who would otherwise never notice a debate (WP editors who don't normally follow AfD). There's a point where, strange though it may sound in the partisan We Have To Get Those Guys And Screw The Rules climate in the United States, common sense ought to prevail for a change. RGTraynor 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Very obvious POV fork covered in other articles as NPOV item. Delete with extreme prejudice.--Tbeatty 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why is it not possible that there is objective evidence for the impeachment of a president? This article can provide these rationales. Also, it is bad faith to put an article up for Deletion for the second time in a day, when the previous article name also had an AfD finishing today. This seems to be an abuse of the process for purely political reasons. If people put this much effort into making the article NPOV it would be done by now. (Slight exaggeration should be noted for the last sentence). Ansell 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment It couldn't really be made NPOV unless it was removed entirely hence why we're arguing. --Strothra 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please be aware, that this is not a re-nomination. It is a restart of the second AfD. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ansell - you are on the right track that political sheenanigans are at play in this being listed twice in one day. However, if there is bad faith it lies with the anti-bush admin who first voted on deletion, then improperly closed the original AfD within 1 day of its being created. Johntex\ 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. With respect to your use of the phrase "objective evidence", please see m:MPOV (megalomaniacal point of view), defined as the belief that one's own personal viewpoints are neutral. -- Curps 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This user has 13 edits. --David.Mestel 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This topic seems to be notable enough and is well-sourced. As for merging into Movement to impeach dubya, I would point out that that article is already pretty long, and would become unmanageable if this were to be merged into it. --David.Mestel 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a blog and not a soapbox. We should not have articles providing advocacy for or against political actions. We should have NPOV articles on political organisations, figures and movements of note in various countries not the arguments that they use. Capitalistroadster 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs major cleanup. It isn't a POV fork or soapboxing (well it is soapboxing, but it is cited soapboxing of others which is something that is allowed). Kotepho 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per my reasons on the SECOND delete nom. Gah. In brief: If there are U.S. Congressmen who are moving to impeach Bush, then the reasons should be enumerated somewhere. Three AFDs in under a month -- and 2 of them in the same day -- is also quite silly. Keep and work to NPOV more. Janet13 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and cleanup). I was tempted to vote merge into Movement to impeach George W. Bush; however WP:SIZE really pushes against that (both are long by themselves). Given that this article is sufficiently clearly identified as a child topic of the aforsaid article, I think it is reasonable (in principle) as an elaboration. obviously, the topic is prone to POV-mongering, but it need not automatically suffer that. LotLE*talk 06:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    P.S. I do agree that User:Cyde's action in prematurely closing the last AfD, and blocking users who voted against him! was highly reprehensible, and a definite abuse of admin powers. The fact I happen to vote in the same direction as him doesn't mean that I think this AfD should not be resolved according to proper process, just like any other AfD (political topic or not). LotLE*talk 06:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Kotepho says above that "Cited sopaboxing by others" is allowed. I disagree. While I assume we have articles on white supremacy, anti-semitism, nazism, and so on, bringing together arguments from these diverse sources into an article Reasons why Jews secretly control the world would be unacceptable on so many grounds I can't list them all. This article is basically the same, starting with a book about impeachment and then piling on with everything that has happened in the last 6 years that is supposedly GWB's fault. The desires of some to see George Bush impeached are not a topic for an encylopedia entry unless they have some foundation in reality (and by this I mean the reality of the impeachment process, not the reality of having been stated in a quotable source). No one in the House of Representatives has even proposed a draft of Articles of Impeachment. Inclusion of particular topics as "rationales" is based on highly POV sources, and constitutes original research, crystal balling and soapboxing by the wikipedia editors involved. Further comments here and here. Thatcher131 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Also see Choess' excellent summary of another fundamental problem with this article. Thatcher131 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: George W. Bush is the top political leader of the militarily most powerful State on this planet. "The Jews" are a fuzzily-defined set of millions of people, whose membership is often a matter of personal religious/cultural identity, and which contains people of a vast variety of different social, cultural, political and linguistic traditions. The reasons presented by people advocating the impeachment of Bush for actions he allegedly took (of failed to take) as part of his role as President of the USA may be right or wrong, but they have no relation to racist stereotyping or conspiracy theories; rather, they are part of a documentable phenomenon of major international political importance. Boud 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The title says it all. Fundamentally, this is essay material, not an encyclopedia entry. Essays may be well written, carefully argued or achieve notability, for instance, Bertrand Russell's well-known Why I Am Not a Christian; however, essay material is not and can not ever be an encyclopedia entry. This is not fixable by changing the "real" title from "Why George Bush should be impeached" to "Rationales for impeachment" to "Rationales provided by advocates for impeachment" or any further levels of obfuscating indirection. Nor is it fixable by any amount of editing to couch everything in third-person phrasing. Nor is it fixable by providing more references ("some people agree with me" can be demonstrated for nearly any opinion on any topic). This is no more encyclopedic than Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, which someone created as WP:POINT, or any of thousands of similar advocacy pages which could be created. It simply does not belong in Misplaced Pages, per WP:NOT. Some editors are letting partisanship get the better of them and trying to tortuously construe some "Rationale for a 'Rationales for impeachment' article". The murky circumstances of the abrupt shutdown of the previous AfD and blocking of several editors were also very unhelpful. -- Curps 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the previous AfD, Cyde Weys posted There is way too much vote-stacking going on. I got recruited by a keep voter and apparently a bunch of other people were recruited by a delete voter. Who was the keep voter who "recruited" you, and did you block that person too? -- Curps 07:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he did. Thatcher131 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or delete if some of this content can be merged into other articles fine, otherwise this should be deleted, either way this article is a POV pusher's paradise and should be gotten rid of in it's current form. Pegasus1138 ---- 13:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename --waffle iron  13:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The present title is Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush - is there a problem with this? Boud 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete see 2nd nom EricR 13:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the other arguments above. It's not encyclopedic but a list of grievances. I am myself quickly running out of patience with Dubya (and this is someone who voted for the cretin twice), but on the other hand Misplaced Pages is not a court of law where we argue in article namespace for or against a proposition. It's also highly theoretical, as even the proponents assert (" Conyers has called for investigating whether this constitutes an impeachable offense" "these violations of US...law could be an impeachable offense" "is seen by some as an impeachable offense" "how any Katrina-related complaints rise to the level of an impeachable offense has not been explained"-- my emphasis) that perhaps not all of the charges are impeachable according to current legal theory, and some do not even asert whether or not the offense is impeachable at all. Pat Payne 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
added links to the quotes. Pat Payne 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per other comments. This looks like badly veiled propaganda. Wiki should be an encyclopedia; plenty of other places for such articles, but not wiki. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the authors of this page should start their own blog, not disrupt wikipedia's quest to become a reliable source of information. there is no way this article could ever have a neutral point of view. Anthonymendoza 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is not encyclopedic Aeon 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete — Dan | talk 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • THE STRONGEST KEEP VOTE I HAVE EVERY MADE. This is just surreal. the 3rd consecutive VfD for this article. the worst and most shameless abuse of process i have ever seen. this, coupled with the most egregarious example of vote stacking i have ever seen. Kevin Baas 15:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that the 2nd nomination was terminated prematurely and controversially after only one day with the delete side well ahead, you can hardly object to this 3rd nomination, which is nothing but a restart of the 2nd nomination. -- Curps 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I did object, and do object, on the basis of _two_ premises. In any case, there was a very short span of time between the first and the second nomination. My second basis is the reason the vote was stopped: because it has been tainted by vote stacking. And now Merecat has been blocked for vote stacking. So I think my second premise is reasonably substantiated. albeit it may seem hyperbolic, it is true: i simply have not seen a more egregious example of vote stacking. so yes, i do object, on those grounds. Kevin Baas 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Since this is not a vote, I am not sure how the process can be tainted by "vote stacking". And as far as I can tell, there was one or two possible sock puppets. Hardly a drop in the ocean of deletes. It seems to me that the Keeps are trying to game the system by tainting the process and therefore defaulting to keep. Delete with Extreme Prejudice--Tbeatty 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- I guess the plan here is to just keep re-running this vote until folks get the outcome they like? Not unlike the way the guy was elected in the first place? Seriously, the judgement of history on this president will not be a kind one, and Wiki might as well be out in front, even if Gee Dub doesn't ever end up getting himself impeached. Atlant 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious, clear and present POV fork. Delete it as such, and revert Movement to impeach George W. Bush back to the pre-forking version. — May. 4, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Very Strong Keep
    Nobody has yet cited a cogent reason to delete the article.

Vote stacking has allready happened, for this vfd. Most of the votes to delete betray the fact and problem that the voters haven't actually bothered to read the article, its references, or the articles discussion page. This isn't consensus process, its pack psychology and anarchy masquerading as such because of the ways the system is being gamed. The Article is about factual movements to impeach which are noteworthy because millions of people share the idea that impeachment should happen and because there are factually better than a dozen cogent legal reasons to impeach legally. Bush HAS IN FACT BROKEN SEVERAL LAWS. Anybody who has a problem understanding that, or accepting it, had best take a long deep breathe and meditate deeply while staring at the opened NPOV page. Prometheuspan Prometheuspan 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • hahahaha I agree with Nasa. Besides, what laws are you talking about? Are you even aware that Bush does not make decisions by himself. There's an entire group of people from Congress to the Executive Branch to the Supreme Court that are all responsible for policy. Congress has give authority to the President to do everything he has done. Further, he was put in that position to execute the powers of President by the people of the United States through an election which was certified and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. He has exercised his contitutional authority to stretch the law during a time of war. The fact of the matter is, and the Department of Justice has verified all of his actions in the legal realm especially in dealing with the war and terrorism, for which no laws exist to govern thus no laws to be broken. The President himself has never been proven to have broken any laws. When an entire government bureaucracy exists to execute policy it is extremely difficult to point fingers at a single individual as responsible which is why impeachments so rarely occur.--Strothra 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    You state that "The Article is about factual movements to impeach". That is not true. We already have such an article, with the obvious title Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which is not up for deletion, and this is not that article. -- Curps 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    That article is 48k long, and this article is a sub-article of that one. — goethean ॐ 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per MilesVorkosigan. Grandmasterka 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a POV fork since it is simply a sub-article of Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Article simply documents why certain people would like to see Bush impeached. You can pick up an entire book on the subject at your local Border's. Reasons need to be given by deletionists why Misplaced Pages cannot report on the phenomenon the book describes. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thatcher131 - and I write this as someone who voted Keep the last time. I've been convinced. AnonEMouse 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant. Rklawton 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Evidence of doing something bad is one thing, but it takes original research to make the connection to impeachability. It's an NPOV soapbox at worst. --InShaneee 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The title has now been NPOV-ed. Unless the people proposing deletion and/or merging into Movement to impeach George W. Bush (or another article) actually do the step-by-step NPOV and reference searching and discussion work of reducing the length of the present article Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush in an NPOV way which does not remove relevant NPOV material, then i don't understand how they can justify deletion and/or merging. Boud 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as retitled; right or wrong, some notable people think Bush has committed acts which merit impeachment, and there is nothing wrong with delineating the specific acts that have been notably identified by these people. Bear in mind, impeachment is a political process - Congress may classify anything as a "high crime or misdemeanor", so this is really just a list of acts that impeachment proponents would so classify with respect to this administration. Still needs much work, but POV is fixed through mechanisms other than AfD. BDAbramson T 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I do want to point out again, though, that some of those "rationales" are false as they impinge on impeachment(this is not to say that they might not turn out to be negative marks on the record of the Administration). Hurricane Katrina, in particlar, butts right up against Hanlon's razor. You can't impeach for stupidity, incompetence or flat-footedness. If that were true, every president in US history should have at one point or another been hauled into the House for a trial (except for William Henry Harrison, of course :D ). Pat Payne 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (forgot sig)
I reiterate, impeachment is a political decision. Congress could impeach the president for jaywalking if it wanted to. The only question is whether a majority of House members would vote out an article of impeachment on the ground raised. The rationales set forth by proponents essentially constitute sufficient political cover to justify the vote. BDAbramson T 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete totally unfit content for an encyclopediaIPO 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see the point of this article; most of the content would fit better elsewhere. Putting it together here, for the purpose of outlining "rationales to impeach George W. Bush," simply doesn't work. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought – tying this content together, in this fashion, is original research. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox – this is close to propaganda and advocacy. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information – the content here solely includes loosely associated topics tied together through original research. — Rebelguys2 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Brownman40 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As of here, the tally is 17 keep, 62 delete/merge/redirect, 1 neutral. —Doug Bell  22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't you think it might be a good idea to seperate the delete, merge, and redirect votes? They're not the same. -- noosphere 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    The problem is that many people (including myself) voted a combination of these choices. Since they all have the same effect, just performed differently, of removing the article, the only way to get a reasonable tally was to combine them. Besides, I only added this for convenience...the closing admin will need to actually determine consensus, not vote tallies. —Doug Bell  22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, combining them is not the only alternative. And it is a misleading one, since it makes it seem like people voted for all three. The votes should be tallied as they're given. If a person says "merge/redirect", their vote should be counted as "merge/redirect", not as "merge/delete/redirect". -- noosphere 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I suppose. I wouldn't be opposed to merging with Movement to impeach George W. Bush, but right now there's really nothing mergeable. However, I believe that we should not recreate as a protected page, as we might have to split up the Movement article at some point, and use some actual reasons in the Rationales article. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, I voted keep in the last one, but comments made above (especially Thatcher131's) convinced me otherwise. BryanG 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per WP:NOT... really can't be NPOV. See also WP:AWW Roodog2k 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Delete to a political wiki. Not the stuff of an encyclopedia. Ashibaka tock 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge useful, encyclopedic content to Movement to impeach George W. Bush per CanadianCaesar. Soapboxing is obscuring the useful content here, sadly. Tijuana Brass 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Merge, or Cleanup - The article currently reads like a proposal for President Bush's impeachment, though some of the information it includes may prove valuable. I suggest either moving some of its information to another article such as Movement to impeach George W. Bush and deleting or redirecting it, or rewording the article so as to eliminate POV.--Conrad Devonshire 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the information can be summarised in the article on the impeachment movement, with links to the articles on the individual controversies, and links to some of the more significant references where people are calling for impeachment. Impressively enough, this Deletion page is now roughly as big as the article itself. (And for the record, no I wasn't "recruited" by a vote stacker, and yes I wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached but that doesn't mean I think this article deserves to be on WP). Confusing Manifestation 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was thinking about not voting, since I got a message on my Talk page to vote, and this is probably because I voted delete in the 2nd nomination. But on the other hand, I would have stumbled on this anyway since I do so many AfDs. So, it's all good. Anyway, I still think this is an obvious POV fork. More than that, Thatcher's arguments are extremely compelling; he's hit the nail on the head and was able to articulate the problem with this article way better than I could. And let me be clear, I am not saying delete the article because it contains I bunch of POV. I have voted keep whenever that was the only reason an article was up for AfD because that is not a valid reason to delete an article. However, this article is inherently POV; the very reason for this article to exist is to push a small minority's opinion. --Deville (Talk) 01:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason this article exists is to represent a significant minority's, including lawyers, legal scholars, politicians (such as ), the American Bar Association (which actually represents the majority of lawyers)..., rationale. FYI. Kevin Baas 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The "raison d'être" of this article is irredeemably ill founded. Delete in 5 days. This will give the "keep" editors time to extract what's here which can be recycled into a more appropriate format and manner in other pre-existing articles. Merecat 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I came up with the notion of comparing this to an article that may be titled Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and a troll soon WP:POINTed the thing. Personally, I think Bush has done some impeachable things, but this article is a POV push and violates WP:NOT. With all due respect to those that spent a lot of time editing this article...I would prefer to see it merged than deleted.--MONGO 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOR File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a lot of verifiable content that shouldn't be thrown away. If there's perceived POV issues, deal with them.. KWH 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDAbramson. Guettarda 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete unimportant, insigificant, biased, purely speculative. this may have a place in some activist journal or personal blog, but it has no place in this encyclopedia.--Jiang 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush per various arguments above. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)