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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Forces Tier System[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Was nominated for deletion via a prod, but this article has previously had a prod contested making it ineligible for this deletion system. Listing it here using the rationale given within the most recent proposed deletion:

"The U.S. military does not have a tier system for special operations forces. The article is based on "perceived eliteness" created by journalists to try to classify these units. Several sources are conflicting as to classifications lower than Tier One. The only definite metric for units is acceptance rates, but even that does not denote a tier system-- none exists." --By User:70.91.70.193

Thanks for your time. Taelus (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, the IP nominator previously tried to list this at RfD, thus I have created this AfD on their behalf so the discussion is in the correct forum. --Taelus (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having interviewed special forces personnel recently, I can confirm the Tier system does indeed exist. Whether it deserves its own article here is however up for debate. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If what that guy is saying in the rationale above is true, then it doesn't sound like a reason for deletion. Instead it sounds like the article should be about the "Tier system" idea that the press uses to describe these units. Regardless of whether the system is actually used by the military. Then, it's a separate question whether this press phenomenon is notable enough.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that Tier One certainly exists. There seems to be a consensus that JSOC elements including DEVGRU and Delta Force are considered Tier One. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are tiers two or three though. That's where the article starts to draw conclusions from incomplete information. Rangers are mentioned in the Baltimore Reporter story as Tier Two in the sense that they are below Tier One. But SEALs and SF have higher washout rates than Rangers, so wouldn't that place them higher than Rangers? None of the sources actually place Rangers on the same level (or above) SEALs and SF, they're simply mentioned as Tier 2 in one article. The words "Tier Two" only actually appear in that one source and "Tier Three" appears in none of the sources. 76.26.80.6 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Tier System" doesn't exist as described in the article. The only "levels" I found in official sources are the terms "national mission forces" and "theater mission forces" that are sometimes used in some reports ([1]). Several things are wrong in the current article : It makes only two tiers, not three. Rangers and 160th SOAR can be used as part of either national or theater mission forces. JSOC task forces ("Tier 1") are not deployed "directly by the President, Joint Chiefs, and/or Defense Secretary" but usually report to the CINCs/combatant commanders, bypassing the Theater Special Operations Command. The Joint Special Operations Package / Rotational Group seems to as bad as the Tier thing, by the way. As far as I can determine, the Tier thing is only quoted in sources that :
- do not reflect a US official system
- that do even not agree on the same Tier system (the Canadian book says British SAS is Tier 2, the British one says they are Tier 1...)
- and that do not support the system presented on the wiki page (no Tier 3, and Tier 2 is not JSOC support).

Hope it helps Rob1bureau (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Just because units are described as "Tier 1" by the media does not mean that a "Tier System" exists. As mentioned above, the only official distinctions are between "national" and "theater" mission units. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I think that there's a pretty clear consensus from this page and from the article's discussion page that the page should be deleted. The "tier system" does not exist as described. At best it is something generated by the media with different sources conflicting as to classifications because it's all based on opinion, not fact, not official designations. There is no official tier system, end of story. Delete article. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by official sources and unofficial ones are contradictory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, DELETE for the reasons stated above. Charlie Tango Bravo (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment, any reliable sources on the topic are classified given the nature of the subject. That leads us to a reliance on speculation, leading to an inherently unstable article which is not verifiable. With that in mind I would recommend delete'. ALR (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge, after summarising, with United States Special Operations Command. and merge it
Delete A tier system does not exist. There are no official sources to back up the tier classifications. Tiers referred to in the media were created by the media and are not even based on verifiable facts or data, but perception and opinion. And even those classifications are conflicting and inconsistent. There are ZERO sources that mention Tier 3, that's a complete fabrication of this article. Beyond that, each source that mentions Tier 2 (and they are scarce) has a different opinion of what constitutes Tier 2-- based on the authors opinion, not research. We can't base an encyclopedic article on that. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (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.