Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Interoperability of Tactical Command and Control Systems

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 keep. The unanimous consensus is to keep, as the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Interoperability of Tactical Command and Control Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll take a look. jp×g 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; there seem to be a good number of citable sources; a couple IEEE papers, DTIC entries (1 2, 3). jp×g 20:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a bit of poking around and it looks like several sources mention JINTACCS. Added one with a bit of info to the article. I think if anyone speaks military acronym (and understands what MTFs are), they could relatively easily add more to the article. The topic is just a bit beyond me. Ajpolino (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Solidly verifiable but the organization does not look notable to me. --Lockley (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JPxG's work above, I feel subject can be seen to have a strong case for notability, as it appears to precipitate a significant amount of research and other academic coverage. Ideally some of these sources and other citations could be properly incorporated into the article some time in the future. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the sources show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.