Deletion of List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush

Comment: SYNTH in making a claim that anyone who signs anything at all ''related'' to an organization is therefore a "member" of that organization.  Uses such ''wonderful sources'' as Lewrockwell.com for conspiracy articles making such assertions.   Violates  by making implications that living persons engaged in a conspiracy.  Violates  by failing to include a whit of balancing material about any person.  Violates  by using sources which are clearly not usable for contentious claims about living persons.  Uses the classic "guilt by association" fallacy through use of a table "connecting" individuals who are not otherwise "connected."  And so on.  I believe the proper term here is "POV pushing list making a POINT".   To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. It is noted that personal anecdotes have no relationship to policy, and at least one editor interprets this as attacking him personally, even though it was given only to show my personal state of mind about such SYNTH usage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:RS)

Comment: or Keep No substantiated policy reason is given to throw away all this work entirely, per .  The OR and SYNTH objections are without merit even to the term "members" given the sourcing and the words the sources use (thus, no BLP issue).  The FORK issue, while having perhaps more purchase, is not sustained in the body of the list article where there is no Wikipedia POV shown, just a recitation of facts: these people did this and this. In short, these relatively few people notably articulated the governing principles of the group and/or as sourced signed on to a notable piece of lobbying of government by the group, and later were notably in government - in a way the sources draw a direct notable line between.  All that is well sourced, and yes both overlapping sets can be discussed and identified by name in the merge candidate or as a sub-list-article, which appears to have been the intent.  (Wikipedia:Article titles|Naming issues should be addressed elsewhere
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE)