Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Mission Unit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Special Mission Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - Simply not enough verifiable content to be a stub, much less an article. From the few sources there are, it cannot be determined if this is an actual designation used by JSOC, or a common descriptor used by the media. I wish it could be more, but there's not enough. What little there is, is already covered in a section of the same name on the JSOC page. Due to the extremely classified nature of the content, it is unlike much more (if any at all) content will be added. - thewolfchild 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article provides a useful discussion of this term (which is often used, including by serious military experts), and is creaking with references. Given that the Australian military applies the term to the elite SAS Regiment, merging this into the US article is nonsensical. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article clearly meets WP:GNG because there is significant coverage from numerous reliable sources independent of the subject at hand. Regarding "verifiability"... a quick search for the term results in 282,000 google hits, 2,620 results in google books alone, 133 results in google scholar and countless references in the news and not from a small handful of non-reliable news agencies either. Regarding the "everything is already covered at JSOC..." The Australian military use the term to describe one of their SOF units (Special Air Service Regiment) so that makes zero sense as far as that goes (link). Could the article be expanded? sure, but so could every other article assessed as a stub. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. — -dainomite 03:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both of you have mentioned the ref's. Some of them are dubious, and even tho' some are RS, there's still no confirmation that this isn't just a common descriptor, (they are units... they go on missions... they are special). There is no info about the Aus SASR what-so-ever, other than a single blurb that described them as a SMU. What is there to discuss? Other than that, there's five US units, and no confirmation that they're even all in the same class. (read: tier) There's not enough info for an article as is. It can't be expanded. And there is already more info in the JSOC article. - thewolfchild 04:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You still have not proven that Special Mission Unit is not verifiable, if you look at the find sources links at the top of the AfD it is clear that the term is used by reliable sources as I mentioned before. AfD's are not for articles that are simply in bad shape or articles that are stubs. Just because no one has taken the time to fully expand it into a "full article" isn't a valid reason for deletion either since there is no deadline. — -dainomite 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have is a collection of sources where the media has used the term to describe these units, and not one source from anything official stating that is exactly what these units are officially classified as. Since there is no official name, the media has to call them something. (read: WP:NOT) - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You still have not proven that Special Mission Unit is not verifiable, if you look at the find sources links at the top of the AfD it is clear that the term is used by reliable sources as I mentioned before. AfD's are not for articles that are simply in bad shape or articles that are stubs. Just because no one has taken the time to fully expand it into a "full article" isn't a valid reason for deletion either since there is no deadline. — -dainomite 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both of you have mentioned the ref's. Some of them are dubious, and even tho' some are RS, there's still no confirmation that this isn't just a common descriptor, (they are units... they go on missions... they are special). There is no info about the Aus SASR what-so-ever, other than a single blurb that described them as a SMU. What is there to discuss? Other than that, there's five US units, and no confirmation that they're even all in the same class. (read: tier) There's not enough info for an article as is. It can't be expanded. And there is already more info in the JSOC article. - thewolfchild 04:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. It's not good enough to say that an article lacks information about something at AfD. Deletion is not for articles that are merely in bad shape. Even a stub will be kept if it can be demonstrated that an article could be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's point, there is noting further (of substance) that can be added. That's why it has been in this 'shape' for so long. There's has been multiple cleanup/fixup tags here for over two years, how much longer are we gonna let this sit here? - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. If you are that concerned about the quality of this article, improve it yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point... this article can't be improved. (but thank you for the pointless reference and your impartial contribution) - thewolfchild 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, quite the opposite. You're missing the point. You say the article can't grow beyond a stub, yet in the time since you have filed this AfD, the article has been significantly improved. Don't say something can't be improved simply because you haven't bothered to take the time to do the work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're missing the... (bah, nevermind) Anyway, you say "significantly improved"? I see a lot of needless repetition needless repetition used to fill out a stub created on speculation. And now, since it appears that the original premise could not be supported, (hence my nomination here), there is an on-going attempt to change the premise, simply to try and justify keeping it (and nullify this nomination) But everything here is already covered in other articles. (see wiki-101) - thewolfchild 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, quite the opposite. You're missing the point. You say the article can't grow beyond a stub, yet in the time since you have filed this AfD, the article has been significantly improved. Don't say something can't be improved simply because you haven't bothered to take the time to do the work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point... this article can't be improved. (but thank you for the pointless reference and your impartial contribution) - thewolfchild 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. If you are that concerned about the quality of this article, improve it yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's point, there is noting further (of substance) that can be added. That's why it has been in this 'shape' for so long. There's has been multiple cleanup/fixup tags here for over two years, how much longer are we gonna let this sit here? - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - essentially per Nick. This article easily passes GNG, and we don't delete articles because they're short or in bad shape. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another point being missed here is that this small bit of info, such that it is, is already covered in the JSOC article, making this stub redundant and needless. - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.