Deletion of Unit cohesion

Comment: This is an important topic in military science and it is easy to turn up substantial sources which are specifically devoted to it.  The current state of the article is irrelevant because it is our |editing policy to improve such topics rather than to delete them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Frankly,  either, but let's keep in mind that AfD is , nor is it about getting rid of  articles.  It's about  of the topic itself, irrespective of content.  Perhaps the term "unit cohesion" has picked up some unfortunate dog-whistle politics | dog-whistle frequencies in the debates over DADT (and over overt expressions of minority sexual orientation in the U.S. military.)  I wouldn't know.  Nevertheless, it's a significant military concept, per comments above.  As for remedies suggested above: I oppose deleting the references to the DADT debate, since this aspect of the topic is hardly insignificant -- if anything, there's probably a notability argument for a debate over unit cohesion vs gays in the U.S. military article, as suggested by (yes, gay-friendly) sources like this one: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:UGLY||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: as it stands this article is simply the concatenation of (i) a , (ii) a  & (iii) material already covered, in context, at Don't ask, don't tell. No non-duplicative encyclopaedic content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF||WP:QUOTEFARM)

Comment: Demonstrably a significant topic in military science.  Article has improved already.  There is still one delete vote outstanding but in light of the nominator's change of position, maybe  could be invoked after this has been left open for 24 hours or so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)