Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 2 January 2009 (Criticism of George W. Bush). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
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.

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