Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy


 * 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 all four. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not WP:Verifiable if not an outright WP:HOAX. At the very least, not notable. No hits on any Google channel that aren't self-placed or a cover page with nothing behind it. See a page of the Boston University School of Theology where an attempt to place an article was rejected on the grounds of non-verifiability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages by the same author for similar reasons:

Regarding the last item, I find no evidence of magazines named ProxyWeek or Control Panel Jockey. Also, the German date style (27. November) used in the name of this purported American club isn't used in the United States&#8212;but it's the style that the author uses in all four articles. (Another editor changed it to US style in the CCRPP article.) This may be evidence of a hoax. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also its website is empty as are ccrpp.org and ccrpp.com. &mdash; RHaworth 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy. It's a one sentence sub-stub with almost no content and it's unsourced. I haven't reviewed the other articles. I have no opinion on them.  Royal broil  02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see a longer version in here when it was rejected at AfC exactly two years ago. &mdash; RHaworth 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizarre&#8212;the Boston University page I mentioned was a copy of that. It's weird what kind of Wikipedia mirrors there are out there. It's like, why is there a Wikipedia mirror on a website called Absolute Astronomy? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all four as hoaxes. &mdash; RHaworth 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not a single Nexis result for any of the terms except Coalition 98, which produces 48 unrelated mentions. Even if this web of organisations exists (I'm not convinced), they seem to be unverifiable and non-notable. -- Kateshortforbob talk  15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (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.