Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.O.S. Investigated


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

S.O.S. Investigated

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. red dog six (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As yet I have no opinion about this article, but I must ask the nominator to start writing rationales in plain English that outline the particular reasons why particular articles should be deleted, rather than pasting the same incomprehensible gobbledygook into every deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this might help, GHits=Google hits and GNEWS=Google News.  red dog six  (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The 'wide net that S.O.S. casts over the Midwest' appears to be restricted to the state of Wisconsin. --Marjaliisa (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No outside coverage from Reliable Sources found, except one report on local TV (it was Halloween, they needed a topical story). The article seems to be mainly devoted to bragging about all the places they have supposedly investigated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2011 (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.