Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wiki143:Articles for deletion
Revision as of 00:01, 28 December 2023 by imported>Jonesey95 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Page added: 24 July 2005, Current date: 22 December 2025

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Long vote - All this discussion :/ Hedley 01:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

this page should be deleted.

And it's not only POV, it's inaccurate and misleading. Many quoted "allegations" can not even be traced to a source. For example, Google results for 'Bush and alleged overseeing of "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments"' yields 1 result - this wikipedia page. The charge of 'Alleged "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;"' seems to have been copied verbatim from http://www.votetoimpeach.org/notes_5.htm, but the source has no supporting evidence to back up this claim ... and it should also be noted that the author of the source web site in question is none other than Ramsey Clark, Saddam Hussien's and Slobadan Milosevich's lawyer, as well as a leader in the World Worker's Party - ie. not the most credible source, especially when he presents no supporting evidence to back up his claim that the US President actually was "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment"

at most, this topic should be a sub-section (and a small one) of the George W. Bush page. Larryfooter 03:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - people seriously want to impeach the President: there's no evidence that he's done anything to warrant impeachment, but that doesn't stop people from trying. I mean people successfully impeached President Clinton. -Acjelen 03:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is an article that needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If there are NPOV issues, tag it as such, but if such a movement actually exists (and I believe I have heard rumblings of it), it's certainly significant. Aerion//talk 03:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Significant, but POV comes out in the last section. Would also support a Merge with Bush's entry. --DNicholls 04:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment I've cleaned up some sloppiness in the last section, which consequently removed some POV.--DNicholls 04:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup. The semi-organized futile grumblings are a phenomenon which is, to some extent, separate from their target. -- BD2412 talk 04:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The acts of the US president, whoever he is, affect the world. Impeachment affects the US president. There verifiably exists a movement to impeach the present incumbent. Ergo, encyclopedic. Keep. Incidentally, Larryfooter might learn things of interest from Charles Tiefer's book Veering right: How the Bush administration subverts the law for conservative causes (U Calif Press, 2004). -- Hoary 05:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Vis-a-vis Hoary, above.Sean Black 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the fact that something exists does not make it encyclopedic - i went shopping today, does that deserve its own wiki-entry? it's only encyclopedic value is in relation to GW Bush, so then make it a footnote in George W. Bush - but to give it a separate article implies that it is a mass movement - which it is not. It's not even a movement!!! It's a brainfart of Saddam's lawyer, for God's sake!!! Ugh!!! Larryfooter 06:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    -- and Horay, you couldn't pay me enough to read that nonsense :) Larryfooter 06:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Persuasiveness comes with fewer exclamation points. Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by your harping on at the fact that Clark is/was Saddam's lawyer. I happen to think that people accused of war crimes (or of pedophilia, of embezzlement, or whatever) should be represented by good lawyers, and that a conscientious freelance lawyer is not besmirched by the crimes, etc., of his/her client even if that client is found guilty. Have I misunderstood US law? Meanwhile, your ability to judge the nonsensicality of Tiefer's book may be assisted by reading it. -- Hoary 07:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to Comment: True Hoary - but if one examines Clark's activities over the past 20 years, then one notices a patern. He defends Slobadan Milosevich - then Saddam - before that he heads up the World Worker's Party - in short, he consistently befriends enemies of the United States of America. So then one must ask himself (or herself) "why?" Why would one take up common cause over and over again with enemies of not only the US, but enemies of freedom, human rights, and life itself (both Saddam and Milosevich were responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people) - so if he starts a "movement" to impeach the president, is that newsworthy or encyclopedic? and if so, is it encyclopedic enough to warrant its own entry, or is it just a footnote to an encyclopedic topic (ie. the President of the United States)? I've never seen any report on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX or read any report in the NY Times, Washington Post or any other paper that leant any credibility to his "movement." There are all sorts of "movements" in the United States, and many of them are not encyclopedic - so why is this one? This falls more into the category of "silly actions of crackpots," and thus is not encyclopedic. Larryfooter 16:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    Generally, I would not recommend taking up a mission of removing from WP all articles about "silly actions of crackpots". Anyway, there are six bullet points in proponents section and the picadilloes of one does not dismiss the desires of many people, no matter how misguided. Note: These discussions should be moved to the talk page. -Acjelen 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as per BD2412. Hamster Sandwich 06:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The impeachment movement is both real and notable. Stirling Newberry 06:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely ridiculous and misleading page. I am discraced that so many people are voting to keep this page. Osu8907 06:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The attack on Ramsey Clark is inappropriate. He was a US Attorney General, for ghu's sake! The contention that this is not a mass movement is incorrect as well, as Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has expressed interest in spearheading such a campaign, although I'm not sure how far his activites have progressed. John Barleycorn 06:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When John Conyers starts such a movement, this page can be created. DiceDiceBaby 16:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean, like this?: [1]
  • Reply to DiceDiceBaby: It would be crystal ballish to say that Conyers is actively spearheading an impeachment movement, but it would not be crystal ballish to say that he has expressed interest, which he has done. John Barleycorn 22:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A movement is "a series of organized activities working toward an objective", as, for example, the Civil Rights movement. Opinions and statements are not a movement. When people are massing in the streets clamoring for Bush's impeachment...that's the time for a "movement" article. I mean, really: Clinton was impeached, and it would be misleading to contend there was a movement for him to be impeached. - Nunh-huh 07:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You have a point, but I think you're defining "movement" rather too narrowly. There does seem to be some evidence that there really was a "vast" (well, pretty big) right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton; you don't need massing in the streets when you've got Fox on the boob tube, AM blowhards, Murdoch journalism, rightwing Christian fundamentalists, etc.: I'd say there was a "movement", or at least the illusion thereof. There do seem to be organized activities working toward the objective of impeachment; I happen to think that impeachment is unlikely because of lingering distaste of the preceding one, but we'll see. -- Hoary 08:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • "My" definition is Merriam-Websters. A conspiracy is not a movement. A committee is not a movement. A task-force is not a movement. There is no movement to impeach Bush. - Nunh-huh 18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Is there any chance this vote won't turn into a POV vent? I do think 'movement' is a bit of a grandiose term to use here, but I'm at a loss over what else to call it. Either way, please let's keep the soapboxes on the user's page, huh?--DNicholls 08:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is a US political stub and should be tagged as such, pending expansion. The lead is anemic and needs a lot of work, however, as it stands, the overall article is a presentation of well sourced information offered in a neutral tone. The only reason to remove it would seem to an effort to censor the content. In addition, I find no issue with the article's title which seems to be in keeping with stanards on article names. Calicocat 09:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At the moment, there is no serious movement to impeach President Bush. If and when there is there should be an article but not yet. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    You may not characterize the movement as "serious," but the movement evidently does exist, and is backed by several notable people. Aerion//talk 13:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    Aerion: if being Saddam Hussein's lawyer is "notable" and qualifies the movements for which one shows support as "serious," then we are all in real trouble. Larryfooter 16:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    Then I guess we're all in real trouble (but hey, I realized that a long time ago). Being Saddam Hussein's lawyer is quite notable, I would think. After all, we're talking about Saddam Hussein. Note that I didn't claim the movement is "serious," only that it exists and is associated with notable people. Aerion//talk 20:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this one. Clean up as necessary to handle POV issues, but keep it. --Paula Sandusky 10:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, it's certainly a notable subject and needs an article jamesgibbon 11:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Impeach him there must still be hope! Dunc|☺ 12:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to clean up. Most certainly noteable. Eclipsed 13:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete

500,000 signatures. Movement is valid. DiceDiceBaby 15:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If Wikipedians can put their ideology aside and vote on the merits of the article, they'll agree that that this is not a serious movement, but a random assortment of pundits and bloggers who have little connection with each other. Based solely on what I've read in this article, there would need to be credible evidence of an actual impeachment movement to justify this article, otherwise its very existence makes it a soapbox. If people want to actually start a credible political movement to impeach him (organize as a political entity, recruit endorsements, fundraise), or demonstrate that such a thing exists, then it would be notable enough to justify an article. DiceDiceBaby 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • My ideology is that disliking something is no reason to delete its article. I can't stand consolidated school districts, unwieldly-large high schools, or megachurches, but that's no reason for me to list those articles (if they exist) on VfD. In fact, if those things don't have articles on WP, I should create them. If they do exist, I should improve them. -Acjelen 16:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

**:Response My ideology has nothing to do with this vote, nor have I mentioned my ideology. My allegiance in this vote is solely to the tenets of what Wikipedia is and is not. It is by adhering to these guidelines that Wikipedia has become successful and not the internet equivalent of a vandalized bathroom door. I would be happy to reverse my vote if somebody could convince me that this movement actually exists. DiceDiceBaby 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep Well written article, carefully neutral, with concrete examples and the circumstances pertaining. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Impeach, I mean, Merge with something, I can't find the right article, but it must be somewhere, there's no shortage of controversy about Bush. The 'movement' doesn't merit an article unless at least some formalities of impeachment have been started, say a vote on articles of impeachment, even if defeated. People simply talking about impeachment is notable but belongs with general criticism of Bush. Peter Grey 17:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not really encyclopedic, given that it's not about anything official. If someone sets up a proper, organised effort then yes it belongs here: at the moment it's just a page of people who disagree with Bush and the reasons why. That sort of thing belongs on George W. Bush.
  • Keep if it can be shown that there's a real organized movement. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A lot of conservatives in the US think that all liberals want to see him impeached. --Idont Havaname 18:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Informative, describes a real political movement. What's it doing at VfD? CanadianCaesar 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - When the answer to the question, "What did he know and when did he know it?" about 9/11, RoveGate, the rush to war over fabricated evidence of WMD, the secret energy policy and its relationship to the war, the deaths and injuries of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to satisfy the desires of the Project for the New American Century neo-cons...the list goes on and on. When the answer to that question is finally known, impeachment will be a blessed relief.
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wixway (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 1st edit. Originally posted at the top - I've moved it to the bottom Aerion//talk 20:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi. Please keep in mind that the question being addressed by this VfD is whether the article is encyclopedic, and not whether voters personally agree with the sentiment expressed by the movement discussed therein. Thanks. -- BD2412 talk 21:02, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This movement is likely to pick up steam if the special prosecutor indicts anyone in the White House. And it will really pick up steam if the Democrats manage to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2006. And in addition to all the other alleged crimes, there is the missing $8.8 billion of oil revenue from Iraq, that some speculate was split between George Bush and Dick Cheney, with a few hundred million in patronage paid out to their enablers. -asx- 20:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable. Martg76 20:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am about to try a search of The New York Times to see if there's evidence that the movement to impeach Bush "exists," that is, is notable enough to make the news and not just an obscure fringe thing. Dpbsmith (talk)
  • Keep and improve, make neutral, etc. "Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says," New York Times, June 17, 2005, Author: SCOTT SHANE, pg. 13: "Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document...At an antiwar rally across from the White House, speakers roused several hundred people with calls to bring the troops home and to impeach Mr. Bush." It's legitimately in the news. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, delete, weak keep, comment? -- uhh, I don't think there is any big cohesive movement for this. This is something that people say... and, I'm sure there has been some kind movement to impeach most presidents. I live on the east coast so of course I will have that bias... and since the middle of the country Republicans don't have internet yet they can't defend themselves here. ~_~ Oh, my point... what was my point -- I think this article makes it seem like there is a movement, not just a bunch of half-hearted grassroot efforts and people saying that wish that would happen because they don't like the guy. gren 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep MicahMN | Talk 23:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a sentiment, not a movement. Millions of people hate George W. Bush, but there is no cohesive movement to impeach him, either. If something actually comes up in Congress, then let's make an article, but until then its not encyclopedic. The article doesn't even have a particularly good grasp on the concept of impeachment, either; it mentions a move on the part of Rep. Conyers and Rep. Frank to "impeach" Karl Rove, a man who holds a position with no Congressional oversight and therefore cannot be impeached. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Congressional standard is explicitly higher than the wiki standard of notability. Since a subway station is "notable", and a radio station notable if it broadcasts "beyond a city", setting the bar at "impeachment charges introduced" is both high and, quite frankly circular. How are charges to be filed with the judiciary if there was no movement to provide political cover? The movement to Impeach Earl Warren never even got hearings, but was mentioned in the press and in books, and was clearly "notable", even if it went nowhere in Congress. Stirling Newberry 05:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Frank and Conyers did send an inquiry to the Library of Congress for an opinion on whether "high-ranking members of the President's staff are subject to the Congressional impeachment process." So the statement is factual. -asx- 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I thank you for correcting my error, -asx-. My bad. Be that as it may, my vote still stands on the fact that I don't believe there to be a cohesive movement at work. If Ralph Nader called for GWB's impeachment, then make a note of that on the Ralph Nader and George W. Bush pages, don't make a whole new article for it. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the constitution that limits impeachment to elected or appointed officials, it says "all civil officers", meaning all non military officers in Article II Section 4
  • Response "if there was no movement to provide political cover" -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a well organized website exists that is raising funds and generating large amounts of traffic, the movement is organized and encyclopedic, but Wikipedia is not the place for this movement to take root. DiceDiceBaby 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep, clean, and start on the Impeach President (Next), as the losers, no matter which side, will begin their 'movements' the second the next Pres is elected. Pathetic, yeah, but thats who we are. Kilr0y
  • Keep. Real movement. Encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 05:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Kilr0y. Might as well create a nice little template for the bottom of the pages too. Hansamurai 15:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 15:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it A current Google for "Impeachment George W Bush" returned 549,000 hits just now. If the article needs cleaning up, revision, so be. But, this seems to be a growing movement from my perspective. If anything, for that many hits on google, the article is understatedly encyclopedic. More documentation of legitimate sources must happen, to be sure, but it's only just truly getting started in the last few months, a la DSM and Plame case. Fermentman 18:30, July 25 2005 PDT
  • I say keep it. This page is a testament to the growing feeling in this country that the President lied to the citizens of this country to fight a war that was based on altogether different motives than the one(s) presented. The massive fraud and corruption that is tied to this military action is appalling, not to mention the absolute reconstructing of the government. For example, since when does the Senate forego consent and advise for an up/down vote? One is a Constitutional responsibility. The other should come after that responsibility is discharged. Yet consent and advise was compromised away. And what of the effort to do away with the Constitutional restrictions on terms served by the President? Thjat would be the 22nd Amendment. It was presented by Representative Hoyer with several co-sponsors.(www.thomas.loc.gov) Let alone the claims of Delay to make Republican rulership permanent.(You can Google this) The ravings of a madman? I think not. - Gonzo ....added at or shortly after 02:59, 26 July 2005 by User:66.235.65.174:66.235.65.174
  • So you did one Google search. try changing the terms and see what happens. To debunk something on the basis of that kind of effort is hardly worth considering. - Gonzo ....added at or shortly after 02:59, 26 July 2005 by 66.235.65.174 within the nominating comment by Larryfooter
  • Expand or Delete The article needs to give as complete coverage to other impeachment movements (with greatest emphasis on Nixon, since his impeachment had the greatest consequences). Otherwise it looks like a vehicle for a Bush impeachment movement. An encyclopedia should focus more on history and less on current events.random user .... posted at 07:45, July 26, 2005 by 68.165.99.194
  • Very strong keep - Some of us started the impeachment process on January 20, 2001, when GWB falsely swore to uphold the constitution by illegally taking office after systematically stealing approximately 1.2 million votes. This is not a new movement, it is just one that has taken a long time to catch on due to corporate media protection of a man guilty of 39 crimes and misdemeanors, at last count. If we apply the same standards of evidence that he applied to the minority inmates he executed as governor of Texas, then we not only need to impeach him but should also execute him.
  • Comment. A strong reminder that this VfD is on the merits of the article itself, and not on the merits of such a movement. Personal political views should hold no bearing on this vote. Aerion//talk 14:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep Movement does exist and there are notable figures behind it (ie it's not just a fringe website). That the chances of success of such a movement are highly remote (unless the Democrats take both houses of Congress in the 2006 election) is not a reason for deletion. Article can be NPOV'dHomey 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep - This is an important and historic movement. There are several campaigns (organized and otherwise) within the U.S. with the goal of impeaching George W. Bush. That the main-stream media refuses to report on these is neither surprising nor is it a confirmation of non-existence of such a movement. Let us not get side-tracked with bellicose detractors who wish to distract us with arguments such as no "official" stamps of approval exist to provide legitimacy to the movement or the precise meaning of the word "movement" or that we should include opinions on why the president should not be impeached, and other inane contentions. This is a movement involving citizens of the United States of America against a corrupt government that continues to erode the Bill of Rights and constitutionally provided rights and liberties. One only needs to look around to realize that the citizenry is disenfranchised and is demanding redress. Such redress, which is our constitutional right to seek, has thus far been denied by this out-of-control government on several occasions. This is a bipartisan movement and should be documented here in a prominent way as it unfolds. --Light Messenger 20:06, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
    • User's 1st edit.
    • Please be careful not to let personal opinion and POV seep in here. Aerion//talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no need to turn Wikipedia into commiepedia.  Grue  05:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Is that a "either you're with us or you're against us" kind of arguement? MicahMN | Talk 17:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is utterly ridiculous and shows an inability for certain liberals (I say "certain" because I myself am a liberal who thinks Mr. Bush is one of our nation's worst presidents in history) to write a reputable and neutral encyclopedia. The amount of keep votes here is shocking. A few people don't like the president, fine. A few people (rightfully so in my opinion) think he has stepped over a few lines with his policies, fine. But this article is just an excuse to grind an ax with the president and seriously undermines the integreity of the encyclopedia. The users who voted keep here need to think long and hard about what constitutes principled secondary source creation. Indrian 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article conforms to NPOV in that it is a list of documentable and notable individuals who have called for Bush to be impeached, and documentable and notable organizations (that at least clear the GNAA standard) which are actively involved in calling for his impeachment. Signed one of those certain liberals who is actually paid to write and had a hand in working on the page. Stirling Newberry 17:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup There exists a movement to impeach President Bush. Are we to remain silent on it? The article is noteworthy and current. If it strays outside the line of NPOV occasionally it should be cleaned up, not deleted. Otherwise we would be deleting a lot of articles on Wikipedia. –Shoaler (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ""Strong Keep"" - Whether one agrees with the movement or not, the fact is that it exists. The article has been altered to remove any political commentary and simply enumerates the possible charges and the proponents of them. These are facts. If Wikipedia is to have any integrity at all, it can't delete true articles because someone objects to the politics behind the movement. Hundreds of thousands of signatures have been collected, Congressional inquiries are being conducted, and there is a special prosecutor investigating the Plame Case. It would be an egregious omission to ignore an ongoing political event. Morgaine Swann 12:27, July 29, 2005 ....added at 04:28 (and a few minutes later) 29 July 2005 by 66.82.9.62
  • Keep and Clean Up This article absolutely ought to remain. That there is a (possibly small) movement for the impeachment of GWB is not disputable. However, if the allegations cited cannot be verified, then that must be stated on the page. Matro 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 12:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!! - Bush and his cronies have clearly committed impeachable acts, far more serious than those committed by Nixon. Those who suggest that this information be deleted should read the U.S. Bill of Rights again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.122.105 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 July 2005
  • Keep - Bush (and his cronies) is a traitor and deserves a fate more drastic than impeachment. Too bad George cut down that cherry tree.
  • Keep. There is a growing movement towards impeachment. Recently, a Congresswoman introduced a Resolution of Inquiry. That seems notable.--Kross 17:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The movement exists. No NPOV reasons for deletion have been offered.Alan 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Excuse me -- Do my ears deceive me? Did the first poster actually say "This page should be deleted [because] it's not only POV [that's the problem], it's [also an] inaccurate and misleading" [article]? Since when do we pitch info because it's inaccurate?! In free societies what we do with inaccurate information is FIX IT! We don't toss it out!!
  • VERY STRONG Keep and Clean Up - this is very encyclopedic (sp), even if I disagree personally --RN 01:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This "article" went sorely awry when moved from the "Impeach Bush campaign" to "Movement to impeach George Bush". Far from being a neutral report, this article is in fact an attempt to manufacture a "movement" that doesn't exist. See this blog begging for people to create a biased article and become part of "history being made". It's unfortunate that Wikipedia allows itself to be used in this way. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment: What went awry about it? I thought "Impeach Bush campaign" sounded horrid, was unclear, and did not give the President the respect he deserves. Only the name changed. I suppose "Campaign to impeach George W. Bush" would have worked as well. -Acjelen 05:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It's always better to name an article for something that exists. - Nunh-huh 05:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
One exists and not the other? -Acjelen 05:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've pointed out above, there's a considerably higher hurdle for calling something a "movement" than there is a "campaign". For movement, there has to be some momentum; a campaign can be any fool with a blog. - Nunh-huh 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - his time has come. ... added at 05:12, July 30, 2005 by 70.187.166.113
  • Keep on te balance of probabilities, it is extremely likely that such a movement exists. ~~~~ 07:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. But this article needs to be re-written to conform to a higher standard.Voice of All(MTG) 17:40, July 30, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&oldid=1626058"