Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (2nd 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 of the debate was keep. BD2412 T 03:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush
no chance in hell of this being reality, POV fork, delete as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BEANS, and finally WP:NOR violations--Ham and jelly butter 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Admins? does anybody around here know how to spot an ad hominem? Really, one should think that a VFD started via an ad hominem should be closed on the grounds of that reason alone. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I second User:Prometheuspan. The drivers of the nom for deletion have demonstrated NPOV support for Bush as their motivation, indistinguishable from pulling a Coleman - anyone check for an IP matching whitehouse.gov? I'd dismiss the idea out of hand, if several Republicans hadn't already done it. - Reaverdrop 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as wishful thinking. Bucketsofg✐ 02:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentAnother ad hominem, however, since it didn't start the vfd, it shouldn't be grounds to close the vfd. This is not wishful thinking, you haven't read the article or you are not paying attention to reality. By the way, 3 different states put forth an effort to impeach. Wishful thinking is actually you, wishfully thinking that this is wishful thinking. Its not. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: How on earth do Civility, No personal attacks, and Don't stuff beans up your nose apply to whether this article should be in Wikipedia or not? NatusRoma | Talk 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Survived AfD before. Where else on Wikipedia do we report on impeachment movement activities? That some people are trying to censor this information from being on Wikipedia through the AfD process is sad. --Stbalbach 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure we can really say, in encyclopaedic terms, that there is a properly-formed "movement" for this. Zaxem 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the first sentence of the article. It says "for the purposes of this article". Please continue reading the article. A lot (a LOT) of time and effort has been put into this article by many many people to conform to Wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If an encyclopedia is going to report on a "movement", it should be a proper movement, not one that requires a "for the purposes of this article..." clarification. Otherwise any disparate belief held a by a few random people can be called a "movement". Zaxem 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment However, any of those alleged movements would lack millions of participants as compared to this movement, so your logic is rendered invalid. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "held a by a few random people". Polls have shown that a large portion of the U.S. population supports impeachment.  Falphin 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But does that mean they're involved in a "movement"? Zaxem 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look here. Falphin 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There a few separate movements noted here. But the title of this article implies that there's one, reasonably unified movement. Which (depite the opening paragraph blurb about "for the purposes of this article...") gives a false impression that I don't think a good encyclopedia should be giving. Maybe the different individuals and groups will become more unified at some point, and at that point an article with this title would be fair. But right now this article, through its title, gives an impression which does not reflect reality. In my view, it's wrong for an encyclopedia to do that. Perhaps my objection is only with the title rather than the info outlined in the article. But I still think that's a reasonable objection for me to raise. Zaxem 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are extensive discussions in the archives about the article title and attempts to rename it. Article titles are place-holders, matters of convenience. They do not specify that something "exists". For example you will find encyclopedia articles called medieval science in many encyclopedias, but science did not even exist until the modern era - but we call it that because people know what it means (it was actually called "natural philosophy"). The text of the article is what is most important. Many professional encyclopedias use the phrase "for the purposes of this article" in the first paragraph, commonly done, it is a useful tool. The article really goes out of its way to define exactly what is meant and makes no claim what so ever of a "unified" movement. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless this article's title gives a false impression about something very current. I still think that's wrong for an encyclopedia of the quality that Wikipedia aspires to be. Zaxem 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a reasonable objection that the title should perhaps be "Movements to impeach..." or something else. Not really a good reason to delete. Rich  Farmbrough 13:26 7  May 2006 (UTC).
 * Super-strong Keep. Just because there's no chance in hell of it happening doesn't mean the movement ain't present.  And reading through this article, it's pretty plain that it IS NPOV, quite civil, has no personal attacks, no beans, and no original research.  -- Grev 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Super-strong Keep There very much is a movement, I believe there was in fact a few towns somewhere in the general New England area that petitioned their senators and congressman to push for the impeachment of bush. Multiple organizations support this. Falphin 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can this be speedy kept. I know some articles go through multiple vfd's, but the last one was a long debate which was overwhelmingly keep with only a few deletes and a couple merges I believe. Falphin 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - First AfD Nomination discussion and results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)
 * that was a long time ago and it looks like it was kept on basis of being cleaned up for POV and soapboxing, from the looks of it, no such cleanup ever took place--Ham and jelly butter 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every POV argument that comes up gets addressed and resolved by people who work hard to make it a NPOV article. Just look at the talk page and edit history. This AfD is bogus, you have provided no specifics. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Über-strong Keep This article has already survived VfD. Articles cannot violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. (Nor do they personally attack Bush in an uncivil manner, but instead cite people and articles who dispute his policies' legality.) WP:BEANS is just an essay, not a guideline nor policy. Furthermore, WP:BEANS only advises us, in a somewhat humorous way, not to do give ideas out on how to disrupt Wikipedia. (I guess, though, we are giving ideas on how to disrupt the govt of the US, but that's not the issue here.) "No chance in hell of this being reality" is wrong. Perhaps you are disputing the chances of impeachment, but that is not what this article is about. This article is about people who called for Bush to be impeached. There are some people calling for impeachment, thus the reality of the movement's existence is at 100%. If the article were titled "Impeachment of Bush", then you would have a point. Now to attack the contentions of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. A read of the article reveals many sources, from which information has been taken and collected in this article. There are some 65 external links in the article text. Clearly, original research just isn't here. There are no personal interviews, personal polls conducted, nor uncited lawyerly thinkings. As for WP:NPOV, this article is as detached from the issue and neutral as I have seen. I believe it provides a third party accounting of the issue at hand. The article has not made assertions that were found elsewhere from reliable sources, but instead simply reports on what other people say. The only possible problem that I see, would be the lack of discussion about the people who are against this movement, however, as some have pointed on the article's Talk page, it is nonexistent, and the article does mention a little bit about a possible response from the Administration. (Sorry for the mini-essay) Copysan 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; AfD extensively discussed already. &mdash; RJH 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- I'm not usually the sort to automatically adopt the conclusions of previous AfDs, but this was discussed extensively very recently. Reyk  YO!  03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grev. -Objectivist-C 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Violates WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NOR.  Morton devonshire 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How, specifically? -Objectivist-C 05:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  This "movement" does not yet exist.  The current wording the page reads more like an attempt to stir up a movement than an honest attempt to report about one.  Rossami (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This movement DOES exist. And this article IS an honest atttempt to report about it.

talking points, not fact or truth. The idea here is to make us believe that impeachment isn't possible. Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the first sentence of the article. Also, provide specific examples of where it tries to incite a movement. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read the attempted disclaimer. I find it non-credible.  Rossami (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has been spamming the AfD on talk pages (only on one so far, my mistake). He was also blocked for putting up the George Bush article for AfD. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grev, but this article should be cut down. In particular, many of the individuals and groups listed under "Endorsements of impeachment" could just be named with citations provided, rather than devoting a separate paragraph to the fact that each supports impeachment and the reasons cited by each. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. When the "Rationales for impeachment ..." came up on AfD last week, the Deleters claimed that it was unnecessary because this article existed.  Fair enough; now this one's up for AfD?  Sorry, but AfD shouldn't be a stalking horse for blatant partisan nonsense -- although a glance at the nom's user page is illuminating -- nor for people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between an article which is written in violation of NPOV and one reporting the publicized viewpoints of others. That WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been inexplicably cited leads me (for the very first time) to question the good faith of an AfD nomination. RGTraynor 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep per Grev and Copysan, fixable problems with NPOV and NOR are not grounds for deletion, and I dont see any strong NPOV/NOR issues here anyways. However, it may be irredeemably NPOV to call it a "movement" so only weak, rather than full keep. (Also, I'd like to strongly echo Copysan's point that the idea that an article can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:BEANS(which is a frackin' essay) is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Smerus 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Copysan. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Moves to impeach George W. Bush. Tyrenius 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the mere fact that there appears to be a concerted effort (three AfD's on the Rationales in one month, and now here) to cleans Wikipedia of even the suggestion there are people interested in impeachment, and what they think constitutes an impeachable offense, is disconcerting. Claiming wikipedia policy, so frequently and on such a massive scale, for what evidently is not grounds for any AfD, shows the lack of understanding of current policy, or it might indicate abusing the AfD-proces as form of censorship.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I agree nescio, this is just gaming the system to censor. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to the ever-changing other article. The "movement" is defined by the article, and OR. We don't need multiple articles about this subject under hair-splittingly different titles. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Just because (you think) there is "no chance in hell of this being reality" does not mean this article should be deleted; I think there is "no chance in hell of" Ragnarök being reality but that doesn't mean we should delete the article.  As for your other reasons for deletion could you explain why you think this article violates the NPOV or any of the other charges?  Again, just saying it does doesn't make it so.  I could say the Groucho Marx article violated WP:CIVIL but without any explanation or rationale as to why I thought that, then there would still be no grounds for deletion.  --Stenun 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. That article presents the efforts of politicians, members of the US Congress or of state legislatures and other people to obtain an impeachment of George W. Bush. These efforts are facts and not just words and are verifiable. So there is no bases for deletion of the article. But, calling these separate efforts a "movement" implies that they are concerted, and that is NOT a fact. Maybe the previous editors of the article can rewrite it, erasing any references to a "movement" if they can't provide verifiable source of its existence. --Sam67fr 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No valid reasons given for deletion, anyone thinking this is not a notable issue should consider the image at the top of the article. This AfD can only cause further problems and will not resolve any issues. Please vote Speedy rather than Strong keep. EricR 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * please ignore this comment, it has no grounding in wiki policies--Ham and jelly butter 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than reasonable in theory even if it has a small chance in hell of happening in reality. Also, WP:BEANS isn't policy, so does that mean we can ignore your comment? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * no--Ham and jelly butter 13:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "KEEP PLEASE" My son is studying about the US Constitution in school and has gotten very interested in the impeachment process so this site has been very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.237.92 (talk • contribs)
 * then your son should try reading the actual constituion, not some wiki article pretnding that a state can magically impeach the president--Ham and jelly butter 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, why are you rude? Let's not forget civility, even if an anon user appears magically in this AfD. And you're right, a state can't impeach POTUS. But a State legislature can advise the House of information which can lead to an impeachment procedure. That's what Impeachment in the United States says... Or is this article wrong? --Sam67fr 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment no, and in fact, wikinews has an article up now about how in fact, the states have just forced the conversation of impeachment. What we run into here are republican psychological warfare

Fiwtart 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, documents a real and notable phenomenon. Rich  Farmbrough 13:32 7  May 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep. The article, in my opinion, has accuracy and obvious non-NPOV problems, but it's a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Deli nk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (was strong keep, but looking at the "reasons", none are actual policy reasons for deletion; at most for article improvement). This nomination is solely to "punish" keep voters in the child article that has a somewhat more POV-prone title (Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination), if you'd like to opine there).  Utterly bad faith AfD.  LotLE × talk  14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable movement. -- E ivindt@c 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I dislike him as much as the next guy, but until articles of impeachment are being considered by a House committee, this "movement" is non-notable Sumergocognito 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are currently bills in the Illinois, California and Vermont State Legislatures, and at least the Illinois bill has 25 co-sponsors. I think that makes it a notable movement. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 15:32 UTC 
 * I saw that in the article, but since U.S. state legislatures have no role in the impeachment process I didn't think them particularly significant. In my above comment, I was referring to the United States House of Representatives. Sumergocognito 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As was discovered by Illinois State Rep. Karen Yarbrough, there is a (never-used) clause allowing state legislatures to call on the House to begin impeachment proceedings. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:03 UTC 
 * Merge. It shouldn't be ignored, but it's not worth much more than a stub on another page unless legitimate organization occurs. possible mergers with either george W. or the presidency of george W. -- preschooler @  heart   my talk  -  contribs  16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it is NPOV keep it.Bill shannon 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe it needs cleanup, but there is a "movement" of sorts and deserves documentation.--MONGO 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is certainly an issue being discussed in grassroots circles, and might become an issue nationally if the Democrats win a house in congress this fall. --Tjss 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - and this is even though I'm voting delete on "Rationales". There clearly is a notable movement. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks a lot like a POV nomination. Tsk, tsk. AnonEMouse 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did not read through the entire article, but I have found that a lot of articles that I need information on have been deleted, and I believe they probably would have had the information I needed. This may come in use to someone and so I believe it should be kept but fixed up.
 * Keep per AnonEMouse and LotXE. Amcfreely 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment nominator has also listed for AfD Bush family conspiracy theory, List of Republican sex scandals, etc. Amcfreely 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Bletch 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this a joke? This article has survived AfD before and the timing, with the Rationales controversy, is highly suspect. Notable political discussion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This article has already survived AfD. A host of notable people have whined and complained about impeachment.  I would prefer a more NPOV name for the article. --RWR8189 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Rename since article title is POV. Should be called more nuetral 'Arguments for the Impeachment...' since title implies more organization between individuals than proven --MarsRover 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You are totally missing the point in such a silly way i am inclined to ask you if you actually read the article? There is a movement to impeach. Collusion between literally millions of people. Those collusions are admitedly weak, but this only strengthens the overall movement. There are literally hundreds of specific efforts any one of which is indvidually trying to to obtain impeachment. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Without considering current content, which may well be biased, the topic is realistic, and verifiable, as Democratic congressional candidates have chosen to highlight this possibility in Campaign '06. Certainly, a stub could exist here, or -- at worst -- a merge to George W. Bush is reasonable. Xoloz 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable movement, possibly a 2006 campaign issue, and has survived AfD before. BryanG 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete overbloated, cruft-filled POV fork of Bush. I hate Bush just as much as the next Democrat, but this is really unencyclopedic. Just add a note in Bush's main article until this becomes reality. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This IS a reality. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely INCREDIBLY strong keep I'm fed up to the eye teeth of the "Well we didnt get it through AfD last week we'll try again this week....and next.....and the next after that" mentality that appears to be pervading Wiki at the moment. Jcuk 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - article is not POV it is an article about a "movement" (you try and find a better term) that has a POV. It is well written, well referenced and definitely worthy of an article. How many times does it need to be nominated? -  Gl e  n   TC (Stollery)  01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but a move to "Movements ..." would be fine. This article appears to have enough good editors keeping it well-documented.  When I looked at it Sunday night, I saw very little that was even close to crossing WP:NPOV or WP:NOR policies.  Topic and content are clearly encyclopedic, though I wish consensus could be reached for any better title and first paragraph.  Survived past AfD and deserves to be kept this time.  Appears as if partisans would like to simply purge all undesired articles.  Barno 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real and significant topic in American politics. Several books published on this. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Don't violate WP:POINT. - Corbin   ∫   1   ɱ   p   s   ɔ   ♫  Rock on, dude! 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and NPOV Check I don't like this article but however this one is encyclopedic. I voted delete on the other because of it soapboxing and similar nature to this article.  This one could stand a NPOV once over just to be safe, so all concerns can be laid to rest. Aeon 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an encyclopedic topic.--Tbeatty 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with morton.--Capsela 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename is probably in order. --Mmx1 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Super-strong Keep - the info speaks for itself; a censure resolution has been introduced in the senate and the republican chair of the senate judiciary committee has dropped the "I" word. Deleting this would be a whopping pro-Bush NPOV violation. - Reaverdrop 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Odd that both this article and Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush have been nominated for deletion at the same time... -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This articles has facts; I actually didn't know about it much. A great amount of research seems to have been done to create it.  Patchouli 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep So, the con serving game playing process manipulating denizens have yet again decided to list an article for deletion based really only on their own pov pushing. This article is factual, it covers a noteworthy topic, millions of people are part of this movement, and no WP rules are factually violated. Prometheuspan 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment this movement does exist in that millions of people are involved in a movement to impeach. Further, 3 states have now forced the issue to be discussed at least by our representatives. So it is factual, it is currrent, and thats that. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Super-Strong Nuclear Keep. I voted to delete Rationales to impeach, but this is an outrageous bad-faith nomination. The article is full of well-sourced statements by non-fringe politicians and opinion-makers either supporting impeachment outright or advocating investigations to determine if grounds for impeachment exist. If we're deleting articles now because they make Republican presidents look bad, we'd better go after the Watergate scandal article next. —phh (t/c) 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - And don't they wish, too. Par for the course from a bunch who cheered when a president was impeached for not a shred more than cheating on his wife and lying about it.  RGTraynor 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsupported attacks on the good faith of other participants in the discussion are not particularly helpful. Please try to assume good faith.  Rossami (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing "unsupported" in this discussion are the grounds upon which the article was nominated in the first place. RGTraynor 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Justforasecond 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it stands is POV and oversells the evidence it has, but those problems are fixable.  The info is certainly encyclopedic. TheronJ 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * transwiki to wikinews. Seems to be a topic that is changing rather frequently. Seems more appropriate there.... Roodog2k 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename is probably in order. &mdash; CJewell (talk to me) 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Change the words to improve on NPOV (when saying movement you object to opinion). How about "Calls For Impeachment for George W. Bush"? LILVOKA. 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If people have NPOV problems with this, then they should work on it step-by-step rather than trying to delete it. Boud 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definitely.  There are articles from sources like Harper's Magazine & Salon.com, and a set of researched & vetted articles of impeachment published by the Center for Constitutional Rights.  The movement exists, demonstrably.  The article could use NPOV polishing & some trimming, to be sure, but this public issue is as real as other movements Wikipedia includes.  This article is an example of what Wikipedia can do that Brittanica can't: provide information about a wide range of topics within public life without waiting for them to become extinct before studied. --Ssbohio 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. More rounded evidence could be provided, but other than that, a very thorough collection of information pertaining to this topic found nowhere else in one place.--Zacharias 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Kevin Baastalk 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've read most of the current article and see a neutral reporting of why some people think the President should be impeached. I think this conflict is good for ensuring the thoroughness and accuracy of the article, but the efforts of contributors and editors should not be wasted by deletion. This article is becoming quite comprehensive and has several pages of citations for it to just be a soapbox for the mythological liberal bias. If certain contributors want to impose a FNC style fair and balanced approach, then perhaps they should create an article on the reasons not to impeach Bush. Cfpresley 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. –Shoaler (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as the language remains NPOV, I have no problem with this article being here (that being said, there are portions, at first blush, that come close to violating that, but those can be rectified through more thorough editing). --Mhking 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean Up - I agree with Nescio (gasp!) in that this looks like an abuse of the AfD system. I do have problems with this article but they are problems that can be remedied through constructive editing by level-headed editors from both points of view (ideally, from editors neutral on the topic).  I've always had a vague discomfort with the title (mostly with the connotations of "movement") as well as the fact that all the examples given are far-left objections.  The article should also mention that at 31% approval rating, there are some Conservatives that are calling for investigations on issues like failing to secure the borders, uncontrolled spending, etc.  There are a few noteworthy people calling for impeachment and a few in Congress that are willing to listen...and if the Dems win a majority in November, hearings could become a reality.  I think it's worthy of an article here, but as presently written, needs to be cleaned up, NPOV-ized, and de-soapboxed.--WilliamThweatt 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV article about a non-notable movement making this unencyclopaedic. Once there are articles of impeachment being considered in the HoR then recreate. Right now, this is just political talk by opponents. And in case it will be asked of me, I came to vote the way I did after reading the first sentence and lead paragraphs where the article disqualifies itself.--Kalsermar 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per obvious majority to prevent Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 from being recreated. Keeping one and prohibiting the other is blatant POV. 1652186 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment sockpuppet *cough* *cough* Rex, *cough* *cough* it's one thing to flaunt the fact that you're unblockable, but it's another entirely to use said socks to vote multiple times in one AFD--172.156.202.208 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here too? Same outrageous accusation, same answer: I've been a user for over six months, I have almost 400 edits, most of them in the last month, and all of a sudden you accuse me of being someone else? Nice thing for a person without a name, talk page or history. If I ever find out who you are, I'm going to use all of Wikipedia's measures against you for spreading false accusations.1652186 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, I mean supposing for a second that someone were among the privileged few with checkuser ability, and at the same time, suppose that person had the ability to browse wikipedia logged out in complete anonymity, such a person, could checkuser whoever the hell they wanted to, then log out and point fingers at the guilty party, without having to get invloved in the whole probable cause business. You're absolutely right, doing such a thing would be unforgivable, and certianly worthy of having "all of Wikipedia's measures" used against them, good thing that's all hypothetical--172.165.245.94 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, unlike the "rationales" blah blah blah, this is a possible NPOV article, and it could be a very informative one too. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilliamThweatt, some votes seem to be on the current state of the article, not its possible encyclopedic value. Ans  e  ll  22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, useful article. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP! With all of the spiteful acts Bush has done as president, it isn't a hot debate but nontheless notable.  It also is quite a controversial debate over his liklihood of being impeached.  I am determined to make this second nomination the last.  --NicAgent 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as nominator has been banned. --Sneftel 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe this article is important to keep. Fighting a costly war in Iraq under false grounds should be reason enough, and it's only the tip of the iceberg! --Jaycorrales 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There are many articles concerning various different "movements", why are they not up for deletion? I think that some people are trying to put forth their own POV by deleting this article. VinnyCee 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This movement is notable enough that Kent Kanoy ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in my district’s Democratic primary. However, he lost. Jesse Viviano 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this article as being viable and worth reading. I do NOT agree with deleting it.
 * - Phoenix7477


 * Reality can not be deleted. There is a movement in this country to impeach a president that has deeply divided the nation at this point in time.  To "Delete" does not make it not happening and not current news.  It only means that less people will be informed.  If there are no factual errors opinions should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Independant (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. This is a real movement, whether or not in the end it is successful. I came to this article specifically to find out what efforts had been done to impeach the president, and the article informed me.  To delete it would be irresponsible. Safay 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad Faith nomination by a (now) indefinitely blocked user, also tried to AfD the George W. Bush article. 84.145.241.165 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As this movement, has clear basis (see Illinois State Senate Article)Cpeter9 May 11 9:34 CST


 * Keep. Wow, a president can be impeached on the spot for fellatio, yet an internet article is likely to be censored for PROVIDING INFORMATION about a movement to impeach a tyrannous terrorist, what a GREAT country you live in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.234.49.207 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep, but I think the article should be moved, 'movement' in the article title seems to be on the edge of POV. &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.