Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Operation Computer Project Team


 * 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. I have reviewed the article, and must conclude that the sources/external links in the article make no mention of the subject, so the verifiability issues are unresolved. As an example of things which are strange, among the links are one to the Royal Horticultural Society, which comes out of the blue and has nothing about this. Since WP:V is a core policy and and an extremely important element for ensuring that Wikipedia's articles remain factual, those requirements cannot be lowered as has been suggested. If someone has sources which actually mention JOCPT, then this can be reconsidered. At present, I am closing this as delete since there is insufficient evidence that this actually exists. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Joint Operation Computer Project Team

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources to show notability or even existence. No ghits, suspect WP:HOAX. Author removed PROD without offering a reason. JD554 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started this article in order to attract more information on this important stage of British military history. As yet there are no official books or any other written histories. And yet this is the stage when the British Army moved its battle control systems from the middle ages to the computerised age. Mercurius (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is verifiability, not truth. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. --JD554 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —JD554 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   —JD554 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put in a request to the admin officer of the Royal Signals Association to see if members can produce the necessary newspaper and magazine articles, and and book references. Mercurius (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have listed two website (one on Wikipedia and one external website) which support aspects of what I have written. These relate to Project Wavell and to Ptarmigan. What I have written provides added background to these. Mercurius (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to this internal wikilink, which is one you added yourself. That and the two external links provide no information on the main topic of the article, ie the Joint Operation Computer Project Team. --JD554 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The information about Ptarmigan already existed and I saw an opportunity there to expand its information. It does not detract from the fact that Ptarmigan exists and must therefore have a history. The article did not provide that history so I added a some.


 * Since what we are dealing with here is brand new unpublished information I have now contacted the Royal Signals Museum at Blandford in Dorset, UK, to see if they can provide any information (and hopefully documents and photographs). Mercurius (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put in a request to the Ministry of Defence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for confirmation of the existence of JOCPT, the names of its personnel, its terms of reference and its achievements. The process will take up to 20 days. Mercurius (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A significant museum's publications, if they would be produced, would be reason to keep this, but otherwise delete, as this information is admitted by the creator as being unverifiable. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This unit does not pass the notability requirements in WP:ORG. The unit needs to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to warrant an article - MoD files aren't appropriate sources to establish notability as they're not independent of the unit (which, presumably, created most of the files anyway) and are routinely generated for all units. Sources from books, magazines, newspapers, etc are needed to establish notability. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the papers lodged with the National Archives at Kew regarding the work of JOCPT are Parliamentary, which presumably are considered independent of the unit concerned and the MoD. Mercurius (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The military is not independent of the government in the UK. This seems like you're getting into the realms of WP:OR, Wikipedia needs reliable independent sources as per WP:RS. PS, please indent your replies so it is clearer what comments you are replying to. --JD554 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Parliament in the UK is certainly independent of Government in the same way that Congress or the Senate are in the USA. Mercurius (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. However, per WP:ORG you need more than one and they need to be secondary sources for establishing notability. --JD554 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the page creator seems sincere, the article seems notable if true, but he will have to really get the article upto all Wikipedia's policy including WP:Vand WP:RS. Alternatively Merge, Redirect with Projects Wavell / Ptarmigan. Annette46 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as given the age of the information WP:V and WP:RS hurdles should be lowered accordingly. Topic may provide enough leads for someone sufficiently motivated to follow. MediaMob (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. No sources found at all. I searched by "Joint Operation Computer Project", still nothing. The source provided in the article does not mention any Joint anything. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to consider changing the title if there is genuine objection to this article appearing under JOCPT. However, it should be pointed out that Wikipedia does not have any pages dedicated to any of these topics: Project Mallard, Project Wavell, Project Ptarmigan. There is a reference to Ptarmigan (as an up and running system) but under a more general article about communications systems and this article would seriously unbalance what is really meant to be a brief summary. All these projects existed seperately in their own right and were vitally important to this aspect of the military history of communications. JOCPT is where they all came together, Mallard as the pathfinder, and Wavell and Ptarmigan put into action by JOCPT. Wikipedia needs seperate articles on each of these three projects, or under this one roof. I believe that the four books I have included and the newspaper articles are sufficient third party proof of the existence and importance of the projects. Mercurius (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on Plessey. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the Plessey article makes clear, Plessey were only involved in one small aspect of the entire project, that of supplying some of the computer hardware for the Ptarmigan side of the system. To merge any of this in what is essentially a small paragraph on the history of Plessey would be inappropriate. Mercurius (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Move/Merge After some research on this subject, I opine that notable subjects like Projects Wavell and Ptarmigan are insufficiently represented at Wikipedia. I suggest Nigel could concentrate on these 2 as articles instead and take off on JOCPT when he gets his sources. Hansard for example 1 and 2 has quite a bit on Projects Wavell and Ptarmigan. Also 3. Articles like this are going to have inherent WP:V issues and we should cut dedicated editors like Nigel some slack. Annette46 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Hansard references which I have added. Mercurius (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (but do not salt), fails Verifiability. It might be right but if it can't be verified then we have no way of knowing. Do not salt, since if sources emerge then an article will need to be recreated. Perhaps the article could be moved to user space since if sources emerge (and it sounds as if they might) then it would be a pity to have to start from scratch. Jll (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - verifiability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (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.