313:- 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
430:-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.
341:). 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
289:- 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.
184:"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
520:
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.
519:
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.
180:
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:
149:
486:, 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
338:- 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 (
380:-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.
248:
143:
274:- 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,
83:
78:
87:
70:
342:
206:
225:
110:
510:
164:
131:
66:
58:
529:
499:
476:
457:
439:
418:
389:
370:
330:
303:
281:
263:
240:
218:
199:
52:
125:
521:
431:
381:
351:
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...)
121:
322:
74:
17:
171:
472:
345:
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 :
339:
259:
137:
544:
36:
543:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
468:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
453:
525:
435:
385:
354:
and that do not support the system presented on the wiki page (no Tier 3, and Tier 2 is not JSOC support).
255:
414:
185:
366:
326:
278:
157:
449:
299:
236:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
410:
399:
214:
209:, thus I have created this AfD on their behalf so the discussion is in the correct forum. --
195:
362:
275:
495:
295:
232:
49:
104:
210:
191:
402:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
448:
Not supported by official sources and unofficial ones are contradictory.--
491:
537:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
249:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
100:
96:
92:
156:
409:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
343:
Joint
Special Operations Package / Rotational Group
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
547:). No further edits should be made to this page.
226:list of Military-related deletion discussions
170:
8:
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
224:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:
223:
511:United States Special Operations Command
205:As an additional note, the IP nominator
67:Special Operations Forces Tier System
59:Special Operations Forces Tier System
7:
207:previously tried to list this at RfD
348:do not reflect a US official system
317:source and "Tier Three" appears in
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
467:for the reasons stated above.
1:
564:
509:, after summarising, with
530:18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
500:09:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
477:16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
458:02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
219:23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
200:23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
53:03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
540:Please do not modify it.
440:17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
419:00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
390:14:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
371:23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
331:13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
304:20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
282:19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
264:19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
241:17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
190:Thanks for your time.
469:Charlie Tango Bravo
44:The result was
421:
321:of the sources.
266:
256:RightCowLeftCoast
252:
243:
229:
186:User:70.91.70.193
555:
542:
408:
404:
253:
230:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
563:
562:
558:
557:
556:
554:
553:
552:
551:
545:deletion review
538:
397:
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
561:
559:
550:
549:
533:
532:
514:
513:. and merge it
503:
502:
480:
479:
443:
442:
424:
423:
422:
406:
405:
394:
393:
392:
374:
373:
361:Hope it helps
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
333:
307:
306:
291:
290:
284:
268:
267:
244:
221:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
560:
548:
546:
541:
535:
534:
531:
527:
523:
518:
515:
512:
508:
505:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
450:Sturmvogel 66
447:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:
420:
416:
412:
407:
403:
401:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
353:
350:
347:
346:
344:
340:
337:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
288:
285:
283:
280:
277:
273:
270:
269:
265:
261:
257:
250:
245:
242:
238:
234:
227:
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
188:
187:
182:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
539:
536:
522:70.91.70.193
516:
506:
487:
483:
464:
445:
444:
432:70.91.70.193
427:
398:
382:70.91.70.193
377:
335:
318:
314:
310:
286:
271:
189:
183:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
411:Ron Ritzman
144:free images
363:Rob1bureau
323:76.26.80.6
276:Buckshot06
463:I agree,
233:• Gene93k
400:Relisted
111:View log
488:delete'
484:comment
428:Comment
378:Comment
336:Comment
311:Comment
296:Qwerty0
287:Comment
272:Comment
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
517:Delete
465:DELETE
446:Delete
279:(talk)
211:Taelus
192:Taelus
122:Google
88:delete
46:delete
507:merge
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
526:talk
496:talk
473:talk
454:talk
436:talk
415:talk
386:talk
367:talk
327:talk
319:none
300:talk
260:talk
237:talk
215:talk
196:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
492:ALR
490:.
315:one
172:TWL
109:– (
528:)
498:)
475:)
456:)
438:)
417:)
388:)
369:)
329:)
302:)
294:--
262:)
251:.
239:)
231:—
228:.
217:)
198:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
524:(
494:(
471:(
452:(
434:(
413:(
384:(
365:(
325:(
298:(
258:(
254:—
235:(
213:(
194:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.