Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of George W. Bush

Criticism of George W. Bush

This is a WP:POVFORK of George W. Bush in which information is cherry picked and placed in this article with a bias. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a minor formatting fix to the nomination.Raven1977 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticism of Bush has been a major issue in his presidency and thus warrants an article. It is important and possible to provide the article a NPOV.--Wadeperson (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Material is relevant, but splitting off criticism into separate articles is not warranted. Some of the material can be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I noticed that a criticism of Obama article has been deleted twice as a POV fork. Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The nominator has used the same "argument" for deletion as I have on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin. To use a further argument I have also used on the VVP article, and this is in the context of the VVP, but is also relevant to this article...As people are now saying that Criticism of... articles should have both positive and negative points mentioned, isn't this still just a POVFORK? Think about it, take, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. This does not belong in a criticism article but in Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy, which has its own article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_policy should be in a section of Vladimir Putin called Domestic policy, and perhaps have its own article Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). ALL of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in Vladimir Putin), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further WP:NPOV. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on ALL criticism of articles. Additionally, and unfortunately, these criticism articles are not written in the context of academic criticism (which by definition covers all sides), but in the context of basic criticism, they are not meant to be NPOV. Once relevant material is merged into relevant articles, it should be deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Keep, but maybe a rename might be in order. To say that the man has received a large amount of criticism in his tenure would be an understatement. Far too much than can be adequately covered in his own article without bloating it to excess. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could an article full of negative views and criticisms be renamed to? I've proposed that the material be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I've worked on the main Bush article, and it deals prety well with criticisms of the president; nothing from this criticism article should be moved into the main article, rather we should create a better, fairer picture of President Bush by placing the positives right next to the negatives and not lump the bad into a POV fork, which this is. An Obama article regarding crticisms has been deleted twice as a POV fork and rightly so. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the most criticized U.S. presidents, both domestically and internationally, and the encyclopedic and well referenced criticisms would overwhelm the Bush article. Edison (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response to the comment right above yours regarding WEIGHT and the main Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very strong keep, as the best way of keeping the main article under control. Probably we do need a general discussion of this type of article; it is not necessarily a POV fork. I think a reasonable degree of forking by what I wll cll "aspect" is necessary on the really major controbersial topics to keep the articles coherent. Both this and Putin count, as such, for similar reasons: as I said there, otherwise this would overbalance the rest of the article. for historical figures, it is possible to integrate this--see the article on Stalin for a good example--but for contemporary ones this is the best we are likely to manage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whether the subject is historical or contemporary, there is no reason that all articles should not follow the Stalin article example, because that is how one would expect it to read in a professional publication, such as an encyclopaedia. All it takes is for us all to wake up to the fact of what it is that we are trying to build here; we don't see other publications doing things such as this, and it is these types of things which makes WP look like a wannabe and amateurish. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Presidency of George W. Bush as a focus upon criticism is inherently not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can never be anything but a POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a "Public perception" or "Presidency" article... yes, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president because of Iraq and the subprime mortgage crisis. He also has the highest approval rating of any president, after 9/11. It's a WEIGHT issue to be so negative when he does hold a record for being viewed that positively. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per WP:POVFORK:
"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, they are WP:Split articles, such as Criticism of Vladimir Putin, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:

criticism articles
Criticism of Google, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Islamism, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of debt, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of intellectual property, Criticism of Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Java, Criticism of Esperanto, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of social nudity, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Criticism of Holocaust denial, Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Windows XP, Criticism of Coca-Cola, Criticism of George W. Bush, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Criticism of the Iraq War, Criticism of college and university rankings (North America), Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of the War on Terrorism, Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance, Criticism of Ultima Online, Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, Criticism of Blueprint Negev, Criticism of Torchwood, Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, Criticism of Ellen White, Criticism of fractional-reserve banking, Criticism of MTV, Criticism of YouTube, Criticism of the World Trade Organization, Criticism of Yahoo!, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), Criticism of The New York Times, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Linux, Criticism of Osama bin Laden, Category:Criticism of religion, Criticism of Adobe Flash, Criticism of sport utility vehicles, Criticism of Second Life, Criticism of recycling, Criticism of patents, Criticism of EDO Corporation, Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, Category:Criticism of journalism, Criticism of the Space Shuttle program, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Criticism of non-standard analysis, Category:Criticism of Islam, Criticism of McDonald's, Category:Criticism of feminism, Category:Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of marriage, Criticism of eBay, Category:Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Scientology controversies, Category:Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the 9/11 Commission, Criticism of NASCAR, Criticism of IPCC AR4, Criticism of ESPN, Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Criticism of Traian Băsescu, Criticism of the FRA law

I could go on, google list 152 wikipedia pages,[1] but I think the point has been adequately made.

Of the 15 Criticism of articles which have been put up for deletion, only one was deleted, and it was recreated two years later. The overwhelming majority of AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep. :{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align=left|Article for deletions of criticism articles |- |

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies Snowball Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Google Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Facebook Speedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Windows Vista Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wal-Mart The result was kept without prejudice against a consensus merge/redirect
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism KEEP (no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Family Guy Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the BBC Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hinduism Speedy keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Coca-Cola Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Linux deleted in 2005, but recreated in 2005.

|}

travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]