Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (4th nomination)

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 was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. The issue of merging, trimming, renaming or what have you can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

While there is no argument that George W. Bush has been less than popular during his time as President, this article appears to be a strong WP:NPOV push attempting to construct a movement that has never officially taken hold. The article is even lead with the information that "The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush, and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so. The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach him." Furthermore, the actual size and contents of the article far outweigh the articles for actual impeachment hearings, as in such examples as Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Looking further, there already exists an article discussing Criticism of George W. Bush, which contains some information which is redundant comparred to those points discussed in the movement article, including Katrina, wiretapping, Iraq, and torture. While I can understand the controversial nature of the contents, I feel that it's best suited as a condensed version of itself within the existing Critcism of George W. Bush article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy close - article has been nominated three times before, and always failed. That it is being raised on Inauguration Day feels very WP:POINTY. The article is not about impeachment it's about a movement, its supporters, their reasoning and the issues. That other articles could stand to be expanded is the first logical fallacy people grasp in order to contract Wikipedia to get rid of stuff they don't like. We have here a movement for which there was large support amongst the public, legal scholars, Congressmen and even local governments. Criticism of George W. Bush is certainly distinct from the movement to remove him from office. I guess for me it comes down to that we are here to explain history, and this AfD seeks to diminish an important aspect of this Presidency, and that harms Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I take except to claims of WP:POINTY. The AfD comes today because I saw the article yesterday while reading up on both the President and President-Elect, and given the controversial nature of the article I wanted to ensure that I did some reading on past AfDs and also similiar articles (such as the ones I link to in the nomination text. I also take considerable exception to calims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as it flies in the face of WP:AGF. I could see there being a basis if I were requesting the full deletion of all content, but considering my request is to simply remove this article and put any relevant information into the existing criticisms, I see no basis for an assumption that I am somehow pushing an agenda. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ To me it appears to be somewhat OR and NPOV (giving lots of opinion polls and reasons about why he should have been impeached, and not so much—as far as I can tell—evidence of a real and organized "movement" that actually existed). On the flip side, though, it is well-researched, and the previous AfDs suggest that there is a pretty strong community consensus to keep it anyway. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my "neutral" and change to weak keep, change title. After looking at the article, there does seem to be some coverage of real stuff (like congressional and other actions) ... although I think it's inappropriate to call it a "movement." I wouldn't be averse to changing the article title (I don't have a good suggestion just yet). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_{Re-opened by Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy keep a) the article was nominated on Inauguration Day, which suggests either a lack of clue or disruption; and b) we have enough trouble deleting actual POV pushing articles (Allegations of Israeli arpatheid, anyone?). This is unquestionably notable; it was raised in Congress, for god's sake. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This has to be the fourth time I've been accused of acting in bad faith (between David Shankbone and Sceptre). I have a well established editing history, and an excellent track record of participation in content discussions. To accuse me of otherwise when the evidence is there goes against WP:AGF. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A lack of clue or disruption". Possibly the latter: what the hell made you decide to nominate it today? Could you have not waited until the National Mall cleared, at least? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes...you said that already on your talk page. Would tomorrow have been any better? I mean it would have "only been a day". Would yesterday have been any better? Well, I hadn't read up enough similiar articles and previous discussions. As I said, there will never be "enough" of a wait when it comes to political discussion on the Internet, regardless of who or what the discussion is. Bush served for 8 years. People's views regarding his politics aren't going to change simply because the next person has been sworn in. Be it 5 minutes from now or 2 years from now. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and well documented movement, on par with various anti-war movements and similar fads and movements expressing broad public sentiment. bd2412 T 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep-Plenty of sources. Notability is without question. If there are any problems with POV, this is not the appropriate venue for discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep and fix NPOV issues through editing and, if editors insist on maintaining NPOV positions, dispute resolution. We delete articles because they 1) cannot be made to meet our requirements or 2) nobody cares to make them meet our requirements, not because nobody has done so yet. The more encyclopedic the topic, the less #2 applies, i.e. very encyclopedic topics should stay even if nobody cares to fix the POV issues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC). Striking "speedy" - while this qualifies for speedy/snow close and barring something unexpected it will close as "keep," the discussion is useful and should continue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the fact that he's now forever unimpeachable as president, the article has historical importance about the movement to impeach, that is, it's clear that there are people that wanted to impeach him. Documenting such a movement is not POV, any more than documenting a ponzi scheme is POV against the perp, per WP:NPOV. Further, reducing an article is not the proper function of an AfD, per WP:BEFORE. With plenty of sources for verifiability, and notability is unquestionable. Discussions to merge, trim, etc. are part of edit consensus discussions in article talk space. — Becksguy (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is my understanding of AfD's that needs a bit of correcting. I will typically make it a point not to suggest an article be deleted unless I am able to offer an alternative for whatever content may be valuable/salvagable. It's my way of showing a willingness to compromise. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge or Rename in future. The "movement" most certainly had enough media coverage to make it notable, but it isn't really a significant movement, and as such stylistically it probably would best be served in Criticism of George W. Bush. This isn't to say that the "movement" was not large, but never appeared to reach the level of organization that would merit the use of the term "movement" and really was more an outgrowth of the opposition to George W. Bush. Failing a merge with criticism, renaming the article to better reflect that this was not a "true" movement would also be acceptable in my mind. This really should be a discussion on the article's talk page, as the article clearly doesn't fail WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changed to Keep rather than Speedy Keep after some thought. Speedy keep suggested I agreed with rationale that the timing of deletion for this article was improper. I do not agree with that line of thinking, as this would be a logical time to consider deletion. I see no impropriety in the AfD nomination of this article, so no reason for speedy keep. Just regular keep.Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The combined length of this article and Criticism of George W. Bush would be overwhelming. If merged, there would be pressure to spin off parts or cut out notable content. As to significance: the Speaker thought it had enough significance to announce it was off the table, and a former Attorney General actually wrote Articles of Impeachment. A resolution to impeach with 35 Articles of Impeachment was introduced in the House in 2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it died. Polls showed up to 45% of the public supported impeachment in 2007. All that, and more, seems rather significant, as it's not just a bunch of anti-Bushies or a fringe element, but a movement. Remember ITMFA? — Becksguy (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on whether this constitutes a movement...but this is a sematics/historical argument for another day. It belongs on the talk page of the article in a proper discussion of whether it should be merged or renamed. I should have made my feelings on the proper time for this discussion clearer. I have modified my bolded recommendation to reflect this temporal shift. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hold out little hope of anything changing (institutional bias and all that), but it's worth pointing out that Clinton actually was impeached and Impeachment of Bill Clinton is shorter than this article. I think this is worth a section in Criticism of George W. Bush (yes, that's a merge) but certainly not a whole article. --B (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of George W. Bush, Trim, or Rename to eliminate "movement" from the article title. I (among others) conducted a lot of clean-up in this article to get it to the state it is in now, but almost all of the remaining content is redundant, giving lengthy summaries of controversies already detailed in the Criticisms article and then citing a few commentators who called the controversy an impeachable offense. Often, the same individual commentators are given mention on multiple issues. Some may say that the failure of the previous AFDs shows consensus to keep this article, but as best I can tell, very few seem interested in contributing to the article beyond knee-jerk protectionism, as I would frequently wait for over a week without a single reply when I proposed an edit to trim the article which, when implemented, would be reverted almost immediately. To get some perspective, this is what this supposed "consensus" defended through three AFDs before cleanup began. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim by 75% or merge to Criticism of GWB. This article has far too much POV and ranting/raving. Actual impeachments don't get this much coverage. Timneu22 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just like a propaganda, so I vote for merge with Criticism of George W. Bush. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No recommendation yet, but object to any attempt to speedily keep. I don't understand the objections to nominating this article today. After all, before today, impeachment of George W. Bush was still a theoretical possibility, whereas now it isn't. Thus, today was a logical day to nominate the article for deletion, since it is now certain that the movement will not succeed. That said, it may be possible to improve this article by normal editing to bring it closer to a neutral point of view. The movement may be notable even though it was unsuccessful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This remains of historical interest. That it was seriously considered was sufficient to justify an article. IfWP were for advocacy, then it wouldn't be necessary to have this, as it is no longer relevant to practical politics. But this is an encyclopedia, & the history of his presidency and the discussion of the justification of his actions during it and the opposition to them did not cease to be of interest this morning. Questions of tone and content are dealt with by editing , not deletion. That one doesn't like the consensus about the editing is very emphatically not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: To compare the impeachment of Clinton with the attempted impeachment of Bush makes no sense of any kind. Allegations against Clinton amount to having sex with an intern (no one's business except their own) and the four Articles of Impeachment essentially cover lying about it. Allegations against Bush include subverting the Constitution, committing war crimes, violating his oath of office, lying, misuse of funds, torture, illegal detention, kidnapping, violating the Geneva Convention and US laws, illegal invasion of sovereign countries, illegal spying on Americans, and others included within the 35 Articles of Impeachment introduced in the House. "How many people died because Clinton lied." The allegations against Clinton are extremely minuscule as compared with those against Bush. The article about Bush should be many many multiple times the size of that on Clinton. And, to be perfectly fair, the other side of the "knee-jerk protectionism" coin is "knee-jerk deletionism". Also, failure to improve an article is not policy based grounds for deletion, rather it's grounds for editing. No one has suggested that this article is not notable or verifiable. — Becksguy (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How many people died because..."

This is not supposed to be about our personal political beliefs. The goal we are supposed to be aiming for is to build an unbiased encyclopedia. Everything you listed and more is already covered in Criticism of GWB. By far, the bulk of the impeachment article is simply reiterating (at length) topics which are more than adequately covered elsewhere. It serves little purpose to repeat this material at length in as many articles as possible when a simple inlink to a centralized summary will do. As I see it, there is nothing unique to the article on the impeachment movement which could not be summarized in a single subsection in the Criticisms article - and as this was a small and uncoordinated movement, if it could be called a "movement" at all, that would seem to be all the more that weight allows. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it's not about any of our personal opinions. The statement I used above "How many people died because..." is not mine. It's a rallying cry from the impeach Bush movement intended as an illustration of the large disproportionate impact of, and number of, "impeachable offenses" by both presidents. I should have placed it in quotes, and will do so now. The Criticism article does not contain everything in this article, nor it is about the movement to impeach which is separate from the criticisms against Bush which are not considered impeachable offenses. Although there are obviously overlaps. The thrust and main coverage of each article is different. Could an article be constructed that contain both? Yes, but it would be overwhelmingly large, require restructuring, and lack focus. And would most likely sustain pressure to split. — Becksguy (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge with Criticism of George W. Bush The effort is worth of mention but most of this stuff is fluff about groups/actions of questionable notability, the article is full dead links and statements in need of better verification and just like any other article on a present political matter this one has plenty of neutrality issues. GWB isn't going to be impeached, cut the fat out of this article and then merge it with the criticism article. - Schrandit (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. MarkRobbins (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and speedy close - None of the arguments for deletion or merger are at all compelling. Spotfixer (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to reasonable size and remove rationales or merge - The rationales for impeachment are absurd to say the least, saying they are "possible" reasons for impeachment is crystalballing. The disclaimer that the process is inherently political sounds like someone trying to justify including a list of things he/she doesn't like about Bush. Hiding behind the techniquality of this being a movement, rather than limiting it to what was actually given in articles of impeachment, allows for it to become a POV rant. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball political lightning rod. Ought we have "Potential War Crimes Trial of Bush" ad nauseam? Best to head that misuse of WP off at the pass -- this is not an encyclopedia article as much as an extended polemic. And polemics, frankly, make for bad history. Collect (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I agree with TRTX's irritation at the repeated attacks that assume lack of good faith on his/her part. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. This discussion is about keeping the article, not about TRTX's motives. Let's keep it that way. TRTX has conducted himself honorably here, and with a clear sense of diligence and responsibility. So knock it off, guys. -Pete (talk)
Keep. Notable and sourcing obviously exists, the rest is regular editing. Per AFD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidiate for deletion. Here's nearly a thousand book hits on Google Books which may help. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~because I hate Bush~~ but recommending a move to something more NPOV like Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Definitely clean up the NPOV soapboxery that is present. Otherwise, this is definitely notable (I don't have to go far at all to show notable examples of the lengths people went to impeach the now former president). MuZemike 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to the Criticism article. As pointed out by the nom, the article opens up making it clear that the government never considered impeachment. That doesn't mean that no desire existed, of course, but come on, every political leader has a group of people clamoring for their blood. There a lot of redundancy here to what already exists in the Criticism article, so why not take what's useful and unique here and place it there? 24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see any reason to delete. Not sure what the alleged violation of NPOV is; the "rationales" section details facts that support the desire for impeachment, highly relevant to the article. (For instance, "In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing Bush of exceeding his powers under the Constitution." This is a highly notable fact; it's unusual for the Bar Association to take such a bold political stance.) Also don't understand why the article's title is problematic. The article could use some cleanup and general work, for sure; but I don't see what's biased about it. An article about the Ku Klux Klan is not an endorsement of the Klan; neither is this article an endorsement of this movement. -Pete (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem then becomes that anything can be justified as a rational reason for impeachment. You need something that was used rather than just what some people think might work.Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; I disagree with this sort of slippery slope argument. As with any Wikipedia article, the thing that prevents us from including "just anything" is editorial judgment. Policy and general rules alone cannot protect us from doing stupid stuff; we still have to be diligent writers, researchers, and editors, and discuss borderline cases carefully. There ain't no shortcuts around that. That becomes a topic for the article's talk page, rather than a deletion debate. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but editorial judgement in this case is trying to guess what Congress deems impeachable offenses. That seems to be WP:BALL. I think we should instead focus on what rationales were actually used instead. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this line of reasoning for the article. I apologize if I'm repeating myself, but in its current state the article reads more as though somebody is presenting a case for impeachment rather than reporting on what has been done to impeach. This is especially true in the "Rationals" section. A better approach for inclusion of such information would be to start at a point such as Kucinich's resolution, as that appears to be the most formal attempt to actual impeach Bush. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge. There was a movement to impeach Bush. But the article suffers from severe WP:COATRACK problems -- for example, the sentence Pete quotes as a rationale to keep the article is a clear WP:SYN violation, since the ABA criticism had nothing to do with the movement to impeach Bush other than an editor linking the two together as a rationale. Article needs a great deal of trimming, and what's left can probably be subsumed within the Criticism page. THF (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: This article is about a grassroots movement to apply pressure on the House for the impeachment of Bush. An impeachment resolution was raised in the House (and then died in the Judiciary Committee). There are plenty of reliable sources that show that a large number of people tried to get the House to impeach Bush by creating pressure on their Representatives, the public, and the press by writing books, articles, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, holding rallies, making speeches, creating blogs, letter writing campaigns, getting local governments to pass resolutions for impeachment, and so on. All that certainly and clearly adds up to a movement. As to possible impeachable offenses, Gerald Ford famously said in the House on April 15, 1970: “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history". We are documenting what the reliable sources say were the claimed impeachable offenses by those pushing to impeach, not necessarily just what was in the impeachment resolution, nor what Congress would have considered impeachable offenses since we can't know that now. Even those that oppose this article agree there was a movement, with some disagreement about it's significance. The ABA statement is pertinent, and I don't see any SYNTH issue. From WP:SYNTH: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. That's clearly not the case here, since it states that Bush exceeded his constitutional authority, as claimed in the rationale for impeachment, so it's not a novel conclusion. There would be an over sized Criticisms... article if this article were merged there. And I think all of it should be kept, which leads to keeping this article without trimming. And trimming is an editing issue anyway, not for AfD, per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not synthesis then it is WP:BALL: However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense (other than treason or bribery). Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." This is used as justification for the list. That seems to imply opinion and speculation rather than hard fact. The articles actually used are a better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Correct, impeachment is a political process. And we report on political processes and reflect what the reliable sources say about political parties, movements, positions, campaigns, and politicians. This is no different. We are reporting on what the reliable sources say the allegations as to impeachable offenses and positions of this movement are. That is not a crystal ball, as no one is claiming that any of the allegations would have been considered by Congress any more than we claim people will vote for a particular candidate for political office. That there are a significant number of people that believe that Bush committed war crimes, and other allegations, is demonstrated. We do not opine on the truthfulness of those allegations, rather report accurately that they were made and that others supported or opposed them if the viewpoints are significant. It is a fact that the Articles of Impeachment resolution was introduced to the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in June 2008 (H Res 1258) and that the resolution was referred by majority vote to the Judiciary Committee. Even if the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment are used as a template, they are sufficiently numerous and broadly construed as to include almost everything anyway. So WP:BALL fails here. — Becksguy (talk)

So then write an article about Kucinich's articles, and where appropriate reference the existing controversy articles. I'll take a second look, but I believe each "rationale" listed in the "movement" article has a subsequent breakoff article of its own. And there is the Criticism of George W. Bush article which already contains a large amount of the content repeated in the "movement" article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy close - article has been nominated three times before, and always failed. This article should remain open. It shows how "popular" the president was. Also, there was a movement(while it may not have been large, it did exist). The media acknowledged it as a movement on several occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "It was nominated 3 times and always failed": I'd like to point to WP:NOTAGAIN and remind you that it doesn't give an article carte blanche to continue on unimpeded. Especially when all three times those who didn't vote keep (and also didn't vote delete) were recommending cleanup. I would say that the article being renominated thrice is an indication that multiple editors and numerous occasions felt that no such undertaking was ever done (or was ever considered) once the "Keep" was announced. Furthermore, things can change...and it's been over two years since the last AfD. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Possibly rename if the title is so offensive to so many. There is to my knowledge no controversy over the factual nature of the article, only a controversy over whether or not the facts contained adequately constitute a "Movement." "Calls for Impeachment of GWB" or something similar ought not offend anyone; Unless someone claims these calls and other functions described in the article did not in fact take place. Brotherchristian (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge into Criticism of George W. Bush due to WP:UNDUE. Should there be any prosecution for the now-former U.S. President, some of the material here could be incorporated into the article of the trial... but that's way into the future, if it occurs at all. The "movement" is being motivated by the criticism; so it is not independent of it. B.Wind (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pro forma comment: why is it possible to renominate if already numerous AfD's resulted in keep? How many times may one try?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information regarding WP's current views on repeated AfD noms, see WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous nomination was in October of 2006. Remember, consensus can change. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bush impeachment campaigns - there were several campaigns both in Congress and in the wider community, all of which failed. Brisvegas 09:18, 25 January 2009 (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.