This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceceliadid(talk | contribs) at 15:20, 17 January 2010(formatted comments and added proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:20, 17 January 2010 by Ceceliadid(talk | contribs)(formatted comments and added proposal)
Comment. 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]
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. Pcapping00:03, 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)[reply]
Comment. Reviewed secondary source criteria, and added two references (can do more) that discuss and cite the need for this sort of program at length (see the abstract for the AMS article). Though GIP 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]
Note: since the (premature) nomination, substantial new sources have been added, and article structure and writing have been improved. This should not have been nominated at all so quickly after its creation, and while the {newpage} template was informatively placed on it. LotLE×talk09:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to HiaB, I put it on right after the nomination for deletion, at which point I went back and read the "so this is your first posting etc." --Ceceliadid (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article currently has five references about it from notable government sources. The article has been cleaned up and notability has been established. Also, an article should not be nominated for deletion one minute after the article has been created and its author hasn’t even had a chance to put in references and establish notability. Samboy (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. Despite the efforts of multiple editors, I see no secondary coverage about this new program; the "secondary" refs are from stakeholders that say they need something like this. "Keepers" above argue that this program in inherently notable. $3M may sound like a lot of money compared to google summer of code, but it comes down to less than $500K per organization, which is not exceptional at all for a government grant that has software deliverables. Even the NSF gives that kind of grants, never mind DOE, DOD etc. I don't know if this is an exceptional grant by NOAA standards, but this is too much of a special pleading. Pcapping19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of mid-range for a grant, but I'm not sure that's relevant. What is unusual about this is its scope-the inclusion of five modeling agencies NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE and DoD as partners, plus there is a close relationship with the European modeling centers. That rarely happens, except in UN-organized efforts like IPCC. It could also be argued on grounds of uniqueness, which searches will show, and importance, which I can only show by citing a bunch of reports that say that it [the topic] is. But if it comes down to whether there are secondary sources or not, which I respect, I can come back with the article in a few months, post-press-release, when it shouldn't be an issue. --Ceceliadid (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the idea seems to be to come to a consensus, is it agreeable to all that this article be userified until sufficient secondary sources develop?
