Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

message: This article is merely a soapbox for Wikipedia editors who want George W. Bush impeached.  We already have an article called Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which in my opinion is informative and NPOV.  It should also be of note that some editors who want this page here and are frequent editors to this page initiated a bad faith RfC against Merecat, who was trying to make the page conform to NPOV. BlueGoose 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

message: There are (2) major problems with this article:
# Too many links - violates WP:NOT
# Totally one-sided - the name of the page precludes the insertion of rebuttal material
Merecat 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merecat - i didn't realise earlier that this talk page about the AfD page existed - so you have my apologies for my comment accompanying my revert on the AfD page which suggests that you had not really shifted my comments (i looked on the talk page of the article itself). In fact, you did put a copy on this present page. Boud 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you 100%. Please seek the aid of someone who can reverse Cyde on this. He was totally out of whack for doing this. He should have recused himself based on his personal bias against the AfD. Merecat 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Early Closure was a good call - this from an editor who would have voted Delete; it was going nowhere very quickly. However, the AfD was not a manipulaiton of the system, and drew attention to a very POV title and established a mandate for a rename. --Mmx1 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you people aware that all these state initiatives have no legal effect whatever? Impeachment is strictly a congressional function. State legislatures and referenda can express a sense of the state, but are a simple attempt to create a bandwagon effect and give bloggers and Wikipedians a thrill. -- Cecropia 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are not "legal efforts", those are petitions.  Please read the articles you cite.  States have no power to impeach.  Citizens of individual states have the ability to push their legislators in Congress to begin impeachment hearings but have no authority to actually impeach.  Impeachment is a matter undertaken at only the very highest federal levels of government in the legislative branch as a check on the power of the executive.  You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class.  You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some familiarity with it.
--Strothra 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt it would have stayed such, but upon further review I am growing increasingly concerned about Cyde's behavior. --Mmx1 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You weren't closing, you were cancelling? Where is the policy on cancelling a running vote? On what authority? Are you saying that closing the vote is impermissible, but you think an admin can just decide a vote can be thrown out? We have a lot of arguments (on the losing side) that "it isn't just the votes." OK. Then you believe that any admin is a God who can determine consensus by what subjective standard? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy. -- Cecropia 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone enlighten me. When did we grant admins this broad discretion? I never had any such discretion at RfA and I was argued with early and often for decisions I went to some lengths to explain. -- Cecropia 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you doing to this talk page?--IworkforNASA 04:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but I warned him against it.  Hopefully he will listen and follow my advice.  --Cyde Weys 04:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will restore the votes and content to that page presently.  -- noosphere 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained to Noosphere, I have no idea how the deletion occurred. I made two edits in the same server minute: the second was only supposed to be the addition of a "?" to a query. Anyway, I told Noosphere that this was accidental and he accepted that. I'm not into stealth vote-rigging ;-) -- Cecropia 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with article

message: It seems to me that there would probably be consensus that:
**Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush is a subject which should be somewhere as part of a wikipedia article, provided that it is written in an NPOV way and properly referenced to external sources. 
**some people suggest that relevant content from this article should be salvaged and merged into Movement to impeach George W. Bush
**some people suggest merging into George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States or similar
**A necessary criterion for merging into another page is page length - but the present page source text is 42 kbytes long right now (according to mediawiki), so would require removing a huge amount of material, especially since there would also be the material of the page into which this would be merged. i don't see any easy NPOV way of condensing the article by such a big factor. 
**Given such a sensitive subject - after all Bush is the president of the world's most powerful military State - surely any claims of reasons why Bush should be impeached need to be referenced, so removing the references - which are a big part of the article source text - would be dangerous for any chance of consensing on NPOV.
**Movement to impeach George W. Bush mostly concentrates on the people and groups or organisations who are trying to impeach Bush - dividing this up from the actual reasons they allege are valid to impeach Bush seems reasonable to me - i don't see any other obvious solution
**pages like George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States are bound to get longer in the future since (even if an impeachment process gets going) he's going to be president for quite some time yet - i don't see how there's room to fit in an extra 42 kbytes somehow thinned out without removing relevant material.
**So maybe it's worth asking these questions to both "keepers" and "deleters" and people not-so-easy-to-classify: 
***Does anyone claim that Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush should not be documented in any wikipedia article?
***Can anyone explain (with some level of detail) how Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush can be merged into another article without removing relevant content and state which other article that is?
***Does anyone object to renaming the present article to Reasons cited for seeking George W. Bush's impeachment or Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush?
**Personal additional comment modifying my earlier comment - i think that some of the article needs to be more NPOV-ed - there are some statements that are POV or borderline POV. But this is not a reason for deleting the article, it's a reason for making small appropriate edits, doing things step-by-step and discussing them on the discussion page if there's any chance that they'll be controversial. And it's something which can probably happen more constructively if there's agreement on an NPOV title of the article. Boud 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merecat - i didn't realise earlier that this talk page about the AfD page existed - so you have my apologies for my comment accompanying my revert on the AfD page which suggests that you had not really shifted my comments (i looked on the talk page of the article itself). In fact, you did put a copy on this present page. Boud 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Attempt at synthesis so far.''' 

message: Cyde Weys has just unilaterally closed the vote after only 24 hours, and just ten minutes after he himself voted to "kill this AfD." The vote must be reopened. I'd do it myself had Cyde not protected the page. This is a case of an admin acting as an editor if I've ever seen one. 172 | Talk 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%. Please seek the aid of someone who can reverse Cyde on this. He was totally out of whack for doing this. He should have recused himself based on his personal bias against the AfD. Merecat 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Early Closure was a good call - this from an editor who would have voted Delete; it was going nowhere very quickly. However, the AfD was not a manipulaiton of the system, and drew attention to a very POV title and established a mandate for a rename. --Mmx1 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature vote close

message: several different persons have called this a "soap box".
Thats a flagrant misrepresentation.
To proove my point, the facts as now standing are that three states,
Both California, and Illinois, and Vermont have legal efforts now under way to impeach.
----------------
Vermonters deliver impeachment resolutions to Congress
Here, what we have is six towns who have now managed to get together and demand impeachment. Their demands are legally binding because they have sufficient signatures.
Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell !
Here, they are using a loophole which allows a state to bring charges for impeachment which MUST then be acted upon by congress and the Senate.
Prometheuspan 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you people aware that all these state initiatives have no legal effect whatever? Impeachment is strictly a congressional function. State legislatures and referenda can express a sense of the state, but are a simple attempt to create a bandwagon effect and give bloggers and Wikipedians a thrill. -- Cecropia 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are not "legal efforts", those are petitions.  Please read the articles you cite.  States have no power to impeach.  Citizens of individual states have the ability to push their legislators in Congress to begin impeachment hearings but have no authority to actually impeach.  Impeachment is a matter undertaken at only the very highest federal levels of government in the legislative branch as a check on the power of the executive.  You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class.  You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some familiarity with it.
--Strothra 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding "soapbox" 

message: Closed AfDs are not protected, and I have no idea why this one was, so I was unprotected it. I also find Cyde's decision incomprehensible. Consensus to delete was more than 2/3, which has been the rough guideline for deletion for as long as I can remember. -- Cecropia 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it would have stayed such, but upon further review I am growing increasingly concerned about Cyde's behavior. --Mmx1 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You weren't closing, you were cancelling? Where is the policy on cancelling a running vote? On what authority? Are you saying that closing the vote is impermissible, but you think an admin can just decide a vote can be thrown out? We have a lot of arguments (on the losing side) that "it isn't just the votes." OK. Then you believe that any admin is a God who can determine consensus by what subjective standard? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy. -- Cecropia 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone enlighten me. When did we grant admins this broad discretion? I never had any such discretion at RfA and I was argued with early and often for decisions I went to some lengths to explain. -- Cecropia 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing and protecting 

message: Probably a bit late; I was not a fan of reopening the discussion, but can we restrict discussion to the talk page only so the votes are easier to track? Isn't there a template that says as much? 
--Mmx1 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we keep discussion to the talk page? 

message: Delete Speculative article that amounts to heavily POV original research on a non-event. -- Cecropia 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you doing to this talk page?--IworkforNASA 04:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but I warned him against it.  Hopefully he will listen and follow my advice.  --Cyde Weys 04:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more denial ignorant lies and falsehoods 

message: There has been at least some vote deletion and deletion of content off of the AfD page.  In this edit User:Cecropia deleted two votes (including my own, which is why I noticed), along with another user's comments.  There may have been other such vote/comment deletions, so whoever closes this AfD may want to look carefully through the edit history for more of the same.  -- noosphere 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will restore the votes and content to that page presently.  -- noosphere 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained to Noosphere, I have no idea how the deletion occurred. I made two edits in the same server minute: the second was only supposed to be the addition of a "?" to a query. Anyway, I told Noosphere that this was accidental and he accepted that. I'm not into stealth vote-rigging ;-) -- Cecropia 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote and content deletion