Deletion of Special Mission Unit

Comment: Meets . It's not good enough to say that an article lacks information about something at AfD. Deletion is not for articles that are merely in bad shape. Even a stub will be kept if it can be demonstrated that an article ''could'' be created
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This article clearly meets  because there is significant coverage from numerous reliable sources independent of the subject at hand. Regarding "verifiability"... a quick search for the term results in 282,000 google hits, 2,620 results in google books alone, 133 results in google scholar and countless references in the news and not from a small handful of non-reliable news agencies either. Regarding the "everything is already covered at JSOC..." The Australian military use the term to describe one of their SOF units (Special Air Service Regiment) so that makes zero sense as far as that goes (http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Divisions-and-Brigades/Special-Operations-Command/Special-Air-Service-Regiment link). Could the article be expanded? sure, but so could every other article assessed as a stub. That doesn't mean it should be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)