Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special forces units


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of special forces units
There is no guidance on the qualification for inclusion, a suggestion that some constraint be applied has been unanswered for a week now. As it stands the article is merely fodder for anyone whose armed forces contain mildly irregular units to add them, indeed some of the country entries are getting ridiculous. Justification for deletion include:
 * Verifiability WP:V: The accuracy of a statement is generally inherently not verifiable.
 * WP is not a List WP:NOT: The article does not contain any elaboration.
 * Its a cruft maget for any old fanboy cruft.
 * Special Forces in general are just about adequately discussed in the Special Forces article and in a number of specific articles which are developing an improving level of verifiability and reliabale sources. ALR 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as the accuracy of this article is verifiable, all you have to do is look for the respective government's own documents in many cases. Furthremore, Jane's Amphibious and Special Forces is a reputable external source.  If you've got a problem with fanboys adding bad content, try dealing with it directly.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is more related to the Elite units, which appear in that source. Any old unit with a line in balaclavas and mirror shades seem to fit into that, so you end up with some countries listing justabout every tinpot outfit.  The only one I can say is accurate is the UK, and even then a couple of editors insist on listing a whole host of dross on a regular basis, that's pretty clear cut because whilst the UK does not have official policy, there is mention of the make-up of DSF in a Hansard (parliamentary) comment.
 * In which case, your concerns are best addressed on the talk page of that article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll note if you review it that nobody actually engages on the talk page, many of the edits are fly-by additions, I'm tempted to cite request everything and then delete everything without a reference in about a week. But to be honest the page adds no value without some form of QA, and there is no motivation behind adding that.ALR 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might wish to look and see if adding a header on the page to inform people not to just add stuff?  FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Per above. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LIST, it only needs some trimming. --Deon Steyn 08:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated above. Yamaguchi先生 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons. Ominae 23:54, 22 September 2006 (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.