Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior officer's protection association

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. Which is extremely regrettable, because I really like it a lot! I don't want to delete it... can you all just change your mind, please? Nevermind. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior officer's protection association[edit]

The author claims that this is an "huge organization with thousands of members". But the number of Google hits suggests not. The clue may be at the bottom of this page which refers to it as a "joke Association". Even if the author was to be honest and describe it as a running joke, then I still doubt whether it would be notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of things made up in the mess one day, and may even have been an attempt to use Wikipedia as a host in starting a community by this name, if it isn't outright propaganda. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and looks like propaganda. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not something made up by the author - it's military slang for junior officers looking out for each other, like "Spec4 mafia" in the army. We used it when I was a junior officer. But nonetheless not worthy of an article, maybe a blurb on some page about military jargon. It's not an organization, confederation, or anything like that; just a running joke in the military, like West Point Protection Agency/Association.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Well I can assure you this is not made up, nor is it propaganda. There is no website because the organization has no central governance. Each command, ship, squadron, etc has a JOPA, which exists as a bond between the junior officers. The org exists in varying degrees. One command's members may be heavily active in it, using it as a network within the command to receive training and support members at another command may never do anything with it at all. For example, on my ship we had a JOPA email list which we all used actively to contact one another, we had JOPA lunches, JOPA bbq's, JOPA training held by senior members, the list goes on. The fact that there is no website does not disprove it's existence. Try a google search for "JOPA patch" and you will find companies that produce squadron/ship/unit patches who also produce a patch for the Junior Officer's Protection Association. Companies that work for profit would not produce a patch for an organization that does not exist. Tha article exists as an informative page to state the fact that 1) it exists, and 2) what it is, as there are many misconceptions of what it is (as evidenced by the comments thusfar written). -FFG37Navigator 206.112.75.239 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so widespread, then surely someone has written about it in a reliable source somewhere? --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I also know for a fact that JOPA does exist. Although there is no "national" JOPA, the traditions are still carried out by the junior officers at individual commands. The level and types of activity of the JOPA depends on the command. At my squadron, JOPA was mostly about training, the occaisional outing, and meetings which helped keep the junior officers in the loop on new command policies and procedures. It is extremely valuable to junior officers new to the military or arriving at a new command. - Dipper Spook

198.201.23.10 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for the info, Nobunaga24. Just a running joke, unverifiable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it exists, why is it not better-documented? --Wikiacc (°) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly an article giving the use of this inside-joke term can be written, if indeed there are some real sources, but this is not going to be helpful towards it.DGG (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Such an article would probably best go on a title of simply JOPA (joke). Almost every permutation of officer's/officers', protection/protective, association/agency produces a few Google hits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, written with non-NPOV toward senior officers, and does not better the encyclopedia. --Zharmad (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2008 (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.