Deletion of Movement to impeach George W. Bush (4th nomination)

Comment: article has been nominated three times before, and always failed.  That it is being raised on Inauguration Day feels very Y.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: into Criticism of George W. Bush due to . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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 otability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There was a movement to impeach Bush.  But the article suffers from severe  problems -- for example, the sentence Pete quotes as a rationale to keep the article is a clear  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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYN)

Comment: 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 . Further, reducing an article is not the proper function of an AfD, per . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BEFORE)