Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.O.T.SS - Children of the SS


 * 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. Now we're going to make it extra secret. (OK, real reason, no RS'es, no article.) Courcelles 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

C.O.T.SS - Children of the SS

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Short version: This secret society is too secret for Wikipedia. Long version: Attempts to verify this against the sources cited comes up with a rather different reality to the one that this article purports to describe. Here are the actual news coverage from the two dates cited: Read the sources and compare to the article. Need I say any more? Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At least two of the sources cited don't even mention this organization, as indicated by Uncle G's links above. I am skeptical of the idea that this group even exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no space limit here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.234.225 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — 184.100.234.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The Organization Odessa is still open to debate on the belief of it's existence. The little research I did turned up some verification to the existence of The Children of the SS. The David Irving diaries referenced mentioned some of the material covered in this subject. Hopefully others will be able to contribute to this article and bring forth further references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanth (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)  — Markanth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've just read the article, which was worthwhile: "Martian Bormann" was hilarious. But I really don't think we're enhancing our encyclopaedia by giving a platform to this content.— S Marshall  T/C 09:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per being unverifiable. Smells like a hoax to me. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims, described in very detailed terms, not backed up by the referenced sources. This is a hoax. Delete. Thparkth (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable at best, almost certainly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we can't verify the organisation's existence, we certainly shouldn't have an article on it. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (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.