Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commando Selection Training Course


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Commando Selection Training Course

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Whilst some SF selection cses have attracted quite a bit of coverage, such as that for the SAS / SASR etc, the Commando Selection Training Course has not. The only sources that seem to be available are the Defence Force Recruiting website which is hardly significant nor is it independent. What information exists can be covered elsewhere such as at 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) etc. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree, there is an Australian documentary series (Commando 2013) dedicated in a large part to this process. This Documentary has also been on the Qantas in-flight Documentary library for the past 10 months and has prompted a large spike in interest. This has been communicated by ADF recruitment, through which I work, with continuous requests for copies of the documentary and additional information regarding the Selection process outlined. Accuracychaser (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A Qantas in-flight video and a recruiting website are not evidence of "significant coverage" which is what is required. As far as I can tell the subject has only received passing mention in a few books and articles, but never in the detail needed to support a stand alone article. Wikipedia isn't here to regurgitate the DFR website - those interested in joining can find the information there. The make up of the course seems to change fairly frequently anyway and will probably be called something else next week... Pls prove me wrong though - provide the details of the independent sources which cover this course in detail and I will withdraw this nomination. I have no agenda I just don't think it is currently covered sufficiently in reliable sources to be notable. This may of course change over time but at the moment there is nothing that I can find. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find some coverage of the article in a section, but not like other article's sections, if we can keep this article, we can add references and fix the sections up for a minute or two. However, I find this article broken up so much that we might need a complete rewrite. It's more like an application form instead of an encyclopaedia article. DS Crowned (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. This is a run of the mill special forces selection process. The claim that the course is "one of the toughest military courses in the world" is almost certainly rubbish - there is no way that the Australian Army could man two commando battalions and the SAS Regiment from its relatively small pool of infantry if it insisted on them being among the best soldiers anywhere (and the Australian SAS course is, of course, tougher anyway - and even there candidates are apparently provided with more assistance than is the case for the British SAS course, for presumably the same reason) Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think this topic is independently notable enough to warrant an article of its own; even within other articles such as the regiments themselves I wouldn't really see the need to cover this in much more than a couple of short sentences. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -Well done Nick-D on including a personal bias to the topic. Please feel free to provide evidence for your claims. From my research the Regular Army actually only maintains SASR and the 2nd Commando Regiment as regular forces, with 1 Commando Regiment a reserve unit (not drawing from the Regular Army Battalions). Also, both the SASR and 2 Commando Regiment actually draw their personnel from all across the Australian Defence Force and off the Civilian street in some cases, information I have attempted to update in some of the specific Unit webpages. I do not think it is healthy or productive discussion to compare different organisations, or in this case their processes for selection, without factual evidence. Simply stating the known facts on each and allowing others to formulate their own educated opinions should be the intent. I agree that the selection courses seem to change on a regular basis, and that constant update would be required in order to keep up with this. In doing so I would propose to simply make it a component of the 2nd Commando Regiment page itself. Since Wikipedia is one of the first points of reference for nearly all topics imaginable, why would be not look to at least maintain this information and acknowledge that it may be overtaken by events at some point, then update it when the facts become available? Also Anotherclown - It is not a "Qantas in-flight video" only, it is an Australian Documentary that during the course of being included in the in-flight library has drawn interest that Wikipedia may be able to assist in providing further information. According to channel 9 it was also viewed by approximately 680,000 - 790,000 Australians per episode during it's initial broadcast, with an additional 55,000 viewings over the past 4 months on the Qantas circuit. I'm not looking to promote this program, as I do not necessarily believe it is a good production, but present these figures to highlight that there is probable cause to expect some subsequent interest in the topic, and that Wikipedia would be an obvious source to perhaps support this. Accuracychaser (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2014 (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.