Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortiergate

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fortiergate

This is a POV rant with a title that appears to be the writer's own creation. Whatever relevant information there is in here is already in other locations. Delete. Matty j 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. No one has described this as a scandal and I've never heard Fortiergate before seeing this page. Wikipedia isn't a forum for partisan rants. Delete --SFont 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable scandal. Besides that -gate isn't original anymore. We've been doing that since 1972. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely a POV fork. Is this even a widely accepted term? --Kinu 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedi is not a soapbox. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Exactly 0 Google hitz. -- Krash (Talk) 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Liberal biased. Jacky man Toronto
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Awful neologism. The supposed 'scandal' is entirely the author's invention. Suitable commentary on the appointment already exists under appropriate articles. Peter Grey 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone can revive this once the term actually has been seen in a publication. In the meantime post information on Fortier's entry. Kelvinc 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Article is blantantly slanted, describing a supposed "scandal" that has not been referenced in a single media source. Tettyan 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Article uses POV and has a name that has never been used in the news. Pbfurlong 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Just a useless rant with a derrivative name.Habsfannova 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. And can I just say I've had quite enough with people suffixing -gate to random words to denote a scandal? Bearcat 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For all the reasons above --M vopni 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I think the Conservatives are about as accountable as an other party (i.e. not) and that this Fortier move of theirs is dirty pool, this particular article is simply a POV rant and the term Fortiergate hasn't been used by the media I've been watching. --Dogbreathcanada 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete by the way, references to "Fortiergate" show up in various articles about the new Canadian Cabinet, PM, election, etc... (pardon me if my terminology is off) someone who knows should edit such references out. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 10 February 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.