Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited

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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidated Credit Bank Limited

Nominated as misinformation. There are no Google hits for this organisation other than its being listed here as a fake bank set up by 419 fraudsters. The "bank" has no website and I've found no evidence via Google that the named organisation even exists. The article is unreferenced and orphaned. This appears to be an effort at astroturfing and I'm inclined to be very suspicious about the article's creator's motives. -- ChrisO 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Added: There's an alternate version of the same article by the same user at Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). -- ChrisO 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - as with the other version of the article, if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.
• Speedy del, as per nom. --soUmyaSch 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a regular hoax. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam. Executor-usa

I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply: OITC did not initiate the original article about it. It is a victim of a misinformation campaign. Replies were written to present accurate facts that will stand up as truthful evidence, and historical facts. You suggest that a pr campaign is being undertaken by OITC. Nonsense. The replies and writings are facts in response to anothers' misinformation and defamation. My comments are mine alone. On my talk page I have stated that factual documents were sent to the parent of Wikipedia, and am sure that the same are available to Wikipedia's parent corporate lawyers and Board of Trustees. I support the writing of a factual, accurate article as a historical necessity. However, if such is to be written, its tenure would be the opposite of the current ideas being espoused that it is either a fraud or a hoax. It is a very important organization, and is quite real. signed Executor-usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor-usa (talk • contribs)

• delete as above. Thryduulf 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. The article is rubbish, and its creator's WP track record is... spotty, at best. -- Kicking222 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

\ Reply: Most of the people voicing their beliefs here are very young. Please be aware that the people who are knowledgable about OITC and CCB are very senior people in governments, central banks, and major banks.The degree of experience to make such judgements by the majority of the commentors is just deficient. I suggest that you refrain from calling something a hoax, a fraud, or not real, when you have no basis, or knowledge, to make such pronouncements. In the end the facts support OITC and CCB whether you like it or not. Executor-usa

Uh huh. From this post and looking at your talk page, if I weren't convinced already that it's a hoax, I'm convinced now. Hint #1 for creating a hoax: don't name drop - it's a dead giveaway. If the facts don't speak for themselves and if you have to name drop, there's a problem somewhere along the line. Accoring to just about every google result, this is a fake bank that is used for scams. This article should be speedied fast. BigDT 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete it's a hoax about a hoax! yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply: The intentional disregard of facts and documents sent to Wikimedia and Wikipedia is not a virtue. Perhaps your self description on your talk page as being insane is accurate. Further, if you think Google results will provide you the truth you are very mistaken.Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth.

Admins? WP:NPA? WP:NLT? Can someone speedy the article? It obviously needs it.

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.