Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Interoperability Program

Global Interoperability Program

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

Delete, Seems self promotional and notability isn't clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as Google is concerned, it doesn't exist. 28 regular Google hits, and some of those are for a different Bluetooth thing. Abductive (reasoning) 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's legit, $3M yr/program, it's just new. Sorry if this is the wrong way to comment. Cdid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceceliadid (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think - I hope - it's looking better. I'm trying to start to document the major software infrastructure projects in the climate and weather domain. I expect the people on specific projects to help finish that process, and reorganize/recategorize as they see fit. Some new categories would be useful - I feel like putting some of these infrastructure projects in a model category is going to be misleading - so I will look into that next. This new GIP program connects a lot of them, so its a useful organizational mechanism. --Ceceliadid (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topics that have no secondary sources should not have articles. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to be a notable program by a major scientific government agency. Well cited to government sources. LotLE×talk 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not the consensus definition of notability on Wikipedia. Being sponsored by a government has no bearing on notability. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right now it read like a NOAA press release. Gov't programs of this (money) size draw attention... if they fail, but not otherwise. Given that there are 7 orgs involved, it doesn't look considerably more important than the average grant. Pcap ping 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it makes a lot of difference, but I added 3 additional funded organizations: NCEP, NCAR, and UCAR Unidata. More institutions are implied under Participants>Development Projects - the collaboration with metafor brings in a whole slew of European centers (who can't be funded directly). Maybe the table helps it not look so much like a press release? Any other ideas for how to make it less press-release-y would be welcome. --Ceceliadid (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Reviewed secondary source criteria, and added two references (can do more) that discuss and cite the need for this sort of program and coordination at length (see the abstract for the AMS article). Though this program is not mentioned by name, its constituent projects are, e.g. I know ESMF is mentioned in the Strategic Plan for the CCSP. --Ceceliadid (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]