Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Operations Forces Mafia

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Operations Forces Mafia

Special Operations Forces Mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is made out of large load of original research. Also the name seems to be a neologism. Lack of references, but the creator deliberately put links from wikipedia or websites that don't contain the SOF Mafia to make the article looks well put together. Chris! ct 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Looks like a pile of OR to me, too - and Google returns only 17 unique hits for "SOF Mafia" (and a whopping zero for "Special Operations Forces Mafia"). --Hyperbole 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. andy 09:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, appears to be a recycling of someone's comparison of several books, difficult to read, and no little clue from the article about why this is relevant. All I can gather is that there is a clique within Special Ops that some describe as its "mafia". Opening sentence isn't even a sentence: "SOF Mafia where SOF means [US] Special Operations Forces which include all type assets under control of the Department of Defense, and specifically the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC) [under the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)], and the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM, [1]), but also includes specialized resources belonging to other Executive activities." Sorry, too sophisticated for us Wikipedians. Mandsford 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's a lengthy justification on the article's Talk page which seems to boil down to an admission that the article is OR. andy 16:31, 4 November 2007 (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.