Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Grand master  ka  04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario
Unsourced POV-laden essay. Part of a campaign by WikiRoo (talk • contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk • contribs) to insert pretty much the same disparaging material across multiple articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with this material. It is fact based and straight written. Wikipedia is not a source for maintaining government propaganda to mislead the public about how things are or are not. If there is editing required then I don't see any reason why someone can't add possitive things to say if this is seen as all negative by anyone. I am sure people see this as balanced factual information.
 * Delete it's an essay, not an article. Danny Lilithborne 04:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Danny. Nacon kantari  04:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR guidelines. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Satori Son 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Essays are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Agree with Satori Son.  --NMChico24 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essay. --Spring Rubber 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and hoopydink. If there's something "unique" that is a verifiable fact without OR or POV, then it can be included in whatever article exists regarding Ontario government. Agent 86 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Looks like some people here are getting all their friends together to post in favour of deleting this article. Someone once said something about protesting too much! I have more details and information to post about the uniqueness of Regional Government in Ontario Canada and will provide links and other reference material to augment this article. I don't see what all the fuss is about. But since the Regions altogether spend close to $10 Billion dollars and therefore a lot of people are dependants on them it may explain some of the insistance against publishing negative details. The same holds true with lack of press about their activities.


 * Delete - per nom., fails [WP:NPOV]. Rob 13:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a personal essay that this user has been trying to get on various Wikipedia entries for weeks (resulting in over 50 reversions and a 48-hour blocking for disruption). Has repeatedly been told that it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, among others. Hasn't made any substantive edits. Topic is already covered at Regional municipality. --Gary Will 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, POV as repeatedly cited above. Fan-1967 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Regional Governments in Ontario are considered by many to be the most corrupt type of government in the world for being outside of public scrutiny hidding behind a false democratic front. The network of families and individuals pilfering from the $10 Billion dollars anually is well known and documented by people that have dealt with them. They use these billions of dollars in public spending to advance their interest. The people that are dependant on the corruption of Regional Government, which includes many professionals and legal systems will do anything to preserve the status quo and keep from general public knowledge the basic structural problems that permit their form of corruption, favoratism and encumbancy to by maintained. I am surprised that we don't yet have hundreds of posters comming here to ask for this article to be deleted.
 * Delete as failing WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --DarkAudit 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAP wash this away. I live in Chicago, and bitch about the corruption though I will, WP isn't the place for an OR rant. JChap (Talk) 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (as attack page speedy if possible), merge any useful/verifiable information into the Politics of Ontario article but only with sources and neutral point-of-view. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) One of the problems with on-line editing people can be anywhere or anyone and use proxy's so everyone fighting to delete this could be all one person or a small group of friends. I could do the same and post 1000 votes to keep this... but I won't fight dirty like these (alledged) different people are doing over this benign article
 * Take your personal attacks and unfounded allegations elsewhere, neighbor. --DarkAudit 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I meant your allegations here, not the original article. I've said what I feel on that already. Before you go throwing around accusations based on your own paranoia, you'd better be ready to back it up with hard evidence. --DarkAudit 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete-An essay which fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. BTW, how ironic that a sockpuppet accuses the rest of us of sockpuppetry, sounds like an attack to me. -- Wine Guy  Talk  19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Paranoia will destroy you. Danny Lilithborne 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) This persecution of everything I add to wiki is rediculous. I think those people should be bammed permanenltly for stalking and vandalism.
 * Delete per nom. And I'll get Emeril right on WikiRoo's recommendation.  Postdlf 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above; note that WikiRoo has now been blocked for twice reposting a deleted article. NawlinWiki 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Wikipedia is not a soapbox Davidpdx 00:22, 19 July 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.