Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SPAs with COIs aside, evidence has been presented during the discussion which establishes the requisite notability for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SORCER[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SORCER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite enormous efforts by experienced Wikipedia editors to find WP:RS, to show WP:N and to ensure WP:V, the discussion has proved to be an endless round of:

  1. Show me that this is notable?
  2. It is notable because it is notable
  3. Give me the reference?
  4. The reference is somewhere in this list of probably non WP:RS material
  5. If I find it, show me that this source is WP:RS?
  6. It must be reliable because I say it is reliable
  7. Return to number 1

This has been going on for a couple of days short of two months. This alone shows that the topic is not notable. Were it to be notable this would have been proven a long time ago. Doubtless people use this environment. Good. Maybe it will become notable one day. Today it is not. It has even been featured on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and people from there have been unable to provide WP:RS sources. The talk page is so immense and impenetrable that it has even required archival to try to clarify the discussions there, but no reliable sources are forthcoming to show notability. The efforts to establish notability have been massive, and have failed.

The entire article is a massive thrust by WP:COI editors to push this project into Wikipedia. It has a tranche of alleged references, many/ most/ all are unreviewed papers by those involved with the project. Those deceive the casual reader into believing that they are WP:RS because they appear authoritative. It contains a huge slew of neologisms, all associated with the project and, despite efforts, those appear to remain both impenetrable and unreferenced.

The original deletion discussion was closed thus "The result was no consensus. I'm hardly convinced keeping this article is the right call, but this discussion appears to have been hijaked by people involved with the program."

I am now, after a smidgen under two full months of people failing to show WP:N, nominating this for deletion, but without prejudice to future re-creation if and when WP:42 is satisfied. I have not yet been convinced that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:Incubation seems like a good middle ground for these kinds of cases. If someone really wants it in, they can put the work in to improve the article and prove notability before it gets let in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with where it is held as long as it is removed from the main namespace until it is ready to be there. The Draft: namespace is also ideal. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation is currently in an RfC, to determine if they will be closed down in favor of WP:Drafts. At present we have SORCER in mainspace, and WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming in the AfC queue. Both are being actively worked on. The subject-matter is extremely complex, and there is a jargon-barrier built up during the past decade-and-a-half. That said, I've got somewhat of a grasp of the concepts ... no doubt Professor Sobolewski is a bit more pessimistic about my grasp than I am ... and progress on the talkpage seems reasonable. That said, I think this AfD will be productive, as a discussion of whether the freshly-compiled-and-ranked-and-summarized list of WP:RS do now, or do not yet, in fact achieve wikiNotability for SORCER-and-ancilliaries. Moving from mainspace into WP:Drafts is not out of the question, but I also disagree that it is clearly necessary, having spent significant time buried in the sources. Would love to have some second opinions on whether wikiNotability is achieved. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is an unusual case: most academic projects don't have the installed base that is evident here, and most production software doesn't significant coverage in the peer-reviewed literature. However, notability isn't met on either axis. The citation counts in the peer reviewed literature are too low to establish academic notability, and the absence of any notice outside the peer-review literature means we can't treat this as a standalone program. While incubation is an intriguing idea, I don't see additional time or effort overcoming the absence of notability. Garamond Lethet
    c     17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) With regard to elapsed time, I believe that what may happen is that the notability we require will emerge, over time, in WP:RS, hence my having no issue with incubation or Draft: as locations. Because elements of this project appear to be classified material I fear, though, that it may only become notable in our terms once it is obsolete. However, since we are an encyclopaedia, not a news medium, I see no problem with the delay. Preservation ion the incubator could be ideal since talk page material will be better preserved than by simple userfication. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are folks at universities on four continents writing peer-reviewed papers, built on SORCER or about SORCER... not sure cite-counting in the EECS literature is the key here, because SORCER was originally a corporate-slash-government engineering project that became a university-slash-open-source-slash-government R&D project. Cite-counting is especially tricksy, if you consider that most of the activity for the USAF folks will be centered around the classified literature at the cutting edge, the var-oriented stuff which is not even available in the open-source reference-implementation. Of course, WP:REQUIRED applies, nobody has to invest time & effort that does not wish to. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I work on several corporate-slash-government engineering projects at various levels of classification. Most, like this one, don't have the notability necessary for an encyclopedia article. That doesn't mean those projects are unimportant, it just means there's a lack of coverage outside the peer-reviewed literature and insufficient citations within the peer-reviewed literature. Garamond Lethet
c 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of automobiles on the road and throughout history that have all had and would not be the same without a glovebox hinge. However, until reliable sources decide to write in significant manner about glove box hinges, they will remain a red link at Wikipedia. And the same with SORCER - just because it exists and no matter how ubiquitous or useful, until a third party decides to write about it, it fails the requirements for having an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have hundreds of reliable sources which give WP:NOTEWORTHY mention to glovebox hinges... all the Chiltons and Haynes and official service manuals explicitly mention them, for thousands of vehicle-models. But they are too trivial for wikipedia; we of course have hinge and also glovebox articles, even the venerable mop. But that's the wrong argument; SORCER/etc are not too trivial; they may be too rarefied, not yet mainstream enough, which is methinks what Garamond is saying in terms of cite-counts. But WP:GNG doesn't demand cite-counts, it just demands publication in peer-reviewed fact-checked places, right? I will ping folks when I have distilled the list into a brief set of diffs, prolly 24 hours or so. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG emphasizes WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources. Peer-reviewed literature is (to a first approximation) a WP:PRIMARY source. [Review articles are an excellent secondary source; the articles they're reviewing are primary sources.] We can use primary sources, but it's a difficult trick to establish notability using only primary sources. Garamond Lethet
c 23:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY sources must be used with care, yes... but even pretty strictly defined as secondary-source-or-multiple-refereed-papers-each-with-double-digit-cite-counts, we have aerospace engineering/industrial engineering researchers based in Ohio, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, N.Carolina, Poland, China, Russia, UK/Singapore, plus the new Dassault stuff I just found (from France/RhodeIsland). How much more careful can we be?
well... not quite *only* primary sources... but here is my difficult-trick-argument, if you can brave the WP:WALLOFTEXT
True, the emphasis is on secondary sources, such as newspapers (like the Russian ones Beavercreekful found) and several academic-lit-review papers; we have those also, though they are not especially widely-cited by EECS standards (SORCER is really AeroE though! different field entirely). Also true, WP:PRIMARY sources can be used, but "with care" is the caveat. The SORCER paper with the highest cite-count we know about is 75, which is the 2000 one by Rohl/Kolonay/Irani/Sobolewski/Kao Sobolewski and Kolonay are the key proponents of SORCER inside the USAF nowadays). The next-highest cite-count specifically and *only* about SORCER is the opus SORCER'08 by Sobolewski, at 43 cites, plus exertion-oriented-programming the year before at 36. Many modern efforts, such as the 2012 Dayton PhD thesis, actually only cite Sobolewski's Handbook-2010 (has 11 cites so far), which is more pratical-minded than the EECS-oriented academic papers of 2007/2008. There are about a dozen co-authors involved with that core work.
  We also have W.D.Li with 64 cites, and C.D.Cera with 67 cites, and K.Deb with 33 cites (for MOO ... plus 8000 cites in their broader MOO lit); these all seem independent folks to me, not involved with the current SORCER team, but rather with offshoots from the predecessor-project FIPER. With the exception of K.Deb and the MOO-lit, I haven't looked into all their work in detail, to see how much *ink* they give to SORCER-fka-FIPER, but my basic argument here is, we have the following: roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention FIPER, roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention SORCER, spanning not just several research-groups but several continents. SORCER is almost entirely applied specifically in aerospace-engineering and industrial-engineering, but we have important math-quant-rockstar-authors in like Kalyanmoy Deb specifically mentioning FIPER and citing papers by Sobolewski (chief inventor of SORCER) and Kolonay (chief champion of SORCER apps) in the sub-sub-discipline of Computer Science known as multi-objective optimization which is mostly used for economics stuff like mitigating risk in stock-market-portfolios.
  We *also* have the depth, and although some of our most-in-depth-papers are WP:PRIMARY in a technical sense, they are also impeccably peer-reviewed and editorially-fact-checked across a dozen year. Last but not least, although Sobolewski has been working sixteen-hour-days for the past two decades, and is listed as a co-author on work with Kolonay from Ohio, Rubach from Poland, Cha/Yu/Xu from China, Berger from Texas&Germany, Goel from New York, and of course half-a-dozen of the most-in-depth peer-reviewed WP:PRIMARY sources we have, this is not a one-man project. There are still at least a couple double-digit-cite-count papers by each of W.D.Li of UK&Singapore, Cera/Kim/Han of Pennsylvania, Nnaji of Pennsylvania, and Wujek/Koch of N.Carolina (these latter two went on to win awards while commercializing FIPER as iSight for Dassault). That's not even counting U.Cranfield and RMIT in Australia.
  But the real kicker is not the academic breadth, in the field of aerospace engineering primarily (and computer science secondarily e.g. Berger's filesystems). The real-world use of SORCER is the key; it began life as a commercial-made-slash-government-funded project FIPER in the late 1990s, used to design turbines at GE. A decade and a half later, we have newspaper articles indicating the Russians use SORCER for aerospace, and half-a-dozen academic papers about traffic-noise in China (by Nan Li et al who methinks is unconnected to Cha/Yu/Xu ... plus on-wiki hints of User:Kazumo's quad-year research project from 2012-2015), and of course we *know* from the unclassified papers by Kolonay and Sobolewski and Burton and friends (plus the larger bulk of classified papers the small number in the open imply) that the USAF is designing vehicles with SORCER.
  p.s. I disagree with scope_creep about the relevance of mogramming, which is both brand newish (2011 paper has 2 cites on google scholar), and furthermore not fully declassified by AFRL yet. Exertions and SORCER culminated into a relatively final academic form during 2007/2008, as a generalized form of FIPER. But the predecessor-system is definitely also the brainchild of Sobolewski/Kolonay (and to a lesser extent Wujek/Koch), with the 75 cites from the original FIPER 2000 paper.
  p.p.s. Speaking of Wujek and Koch of Engenious Software, the North Carolina startup which was involved during the FIPER project, then acquired in 2008 by Dassault... subsidiary overviews,[1][2][3] 2007 .ppt for the USN (page 36 and 37 give key concept... plus university-testimonial on page 45 and customer-testimonial on page 20),[4][5] 2008 paywall,[6] 2009 mag review,[7][8] 2011 press-release picked up by Reuters,[9] 2012 lawsuit,[10] 2013 newspaper,[11] 2013 govtpub,[12] and so on.[13]"Engineous"+OR+"iSIGHT"+OR+"SIMULIA")+("dassault"+OR+"3ds")[14]
  Adding that onto their academic publications, Wujek & Koch have enough sources for a stub-article all to themselves, methinks. Heh heh heh... after previewing it turns out there is already an article on that branch of the FIPER/SORCER tree... the articles does not mention the iSIGHT/FIPER product nor Engenious at all, but instead only discusses the primary Abaqus product acquired by Dassault from a *different* startup HKS and then later legally-bundled-up with the FIPER/Engenious/iSIGHT acquisition. Ironically, but expectedly of course, the existing article currently cites one blog, one deadlink to what sounds like a republished press-release, and two deeplinks to the parent corporation... none of the Wujek & Koch academic papers, and none of the journalism I ran across for Engenious, are anywhere to be seen. So, we can add the iSIGHT stuff to that article, and keep it separate from SORCER, and cover FIPER in one or the other or both.
  Or, we can just rename the main SORCER article to FIPER... then have SORCER/Sorcer be a redirect to FIPER#SORCER, as well as WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming be a redirect to FIPER#EOP, and Engenious Software as well as Simulia/SIMULIA as well as iSIGHT optimization-software (not the same as Apple iSight webcams!) be a redirect to FIPER#Dassault. Prolly also need to redirect SorcerSoft.com to FIPER#SORCER tools. But arguably, we have enough sources to have dedicated articles on FIPER, SORCER/Sobolewski(AFRL/Poland), *and* Simulia/Engenious(Dassault/RhodeIsland).
We meet the letter of WP:GNG ten times over; all that is being argued here is the spirit of WP:N, methinks. It is an argument well worth having, because I think we *should* have articles on Garamond's work, whatever it is. WP:GNG isn't supposed to be an insurmountable bar, it is merely supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is wheat here, in the FIPER/SORCER/Simulia topic, methinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. SORCER is a software platform, and all by itself is a reasonably broad topic, with various sub-topics, plus various application-areas (jet-aircraft-design and traffic-noise-maps and generic grid-computing among others). Currently there are actually *two* articles, both of them about one aspect of the platform or another. Here is the quick breakdown:
  1. SORCER, an article about the main piece of software, which began as a corporate project in the late 1990s (called FIPER at the time), changed to the university-based SORCER#0 project from 2002-2009 (in Texas/China/Russia/etc), and as of 2010 was spun off into the independent open-source-based SORCER#1 project + the USAF/WPAFB/AFRL/MSTC classified SORCER#2 project, and as of 2012 there is now a commercial corporation SORCER#3 which is a fork of #0 and #1 but distinct from #2. Clear as mud? Please see the investigation of sources here — Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing, which also has a Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing.2C_further_discussion_thereof where commentary & questions would be much appreciated.
  2. WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming, which is a software methodology invented for SORCER, or perhaps, SORCER#0/#1/#2/#3 variants are the first sibling-implementations *of* this methodology. Unclear at the moment whether there ought to be a separate article, or if SORCER#EOP (which does not yet exist despite the bluelink) is more correct. Commentary at the bottom of the AfC page is mostly tech-oriented, Martijn and myself trying to grok the jargon, and not yet WP:RS oriented (see the SORCER-talkpage link above for that stuff).
  I will try to put together a nice list of the "top five" in-depth independent Reliable Sources we have for SORCER/EOP/mogramming/etc, with pointers to the policy-backing if needed. Thanks for improving wikipedia folks; apologies, but this one is pretty bloody complicated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if IP 74.192.84.101 provides a list of reliable third party sources (as has previously been requested on the article talk page) please ping me so that I can review the sources and my !vote. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC) keep and completely rewrite - Ahnoneemoos has provided sources that support the GNG presumption of notability. Now what remains is the question of whether or not a viable article can be created based upon those independent sources - that would be an entirely different article, but that can be handled through the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The eventual outcome really needs to be an active outcome, to delete, to keep, or to relocate. It is probably inappropriate to have a second no consensus outcome. The first closure as this was sound because the discussion was, at best, unusual, and also made no progress. Here, though, my feeling is that we need an outcome which determines the immediate fate of the article. This means that we require accurate and unemotional discussions based upon facts and policies. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT have no place in our discussions, nor does a detailed exposé of SORCER's internals, methodology, mechanisms and so forth. People wanting to see all of those items may visit the article talk page and its archive.Clarity of discussion will allow the eventual closing admin to reach a decent conclusion. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG which states that:

[A] topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [...] is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The following independent reliable sources have covered SORCER:
  1. Cloud Computing and Services Science by Ivan Ivanov, Marten van Sinderen, Boris Shishkov; ISBN 9781461423263. See page 10 and forward: [15]
    Dr. Ivanov is an Associate Professor at SUNY Empire State College who was awarded the SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching (see [16]). He also managed a project in 1996 which was "nominated by IDC, U.S.A. within the top 25 in the world as the best and brightest 25 companies’ IT projects around the globe” (see [17]).
  2. Advances in Computer Science and IT by D M Akbar Hussain; ISBN 978-953-7619-51-0. See page 337: [18].
    Dr. Akbar Hussain is an Associate Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark (see [19]). He is also a member of the editorial board of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON COMPUTER ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IJCEIT) -- see [20]
  3. Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment: Proceedings of the 19th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering by Josip Stjepandić, Georg Rock, Cees Bil; ISBN 9781447144267. See page 998: [21]
    Dr. Cees Bil is an Associate Professor at RMIT University (see [22]) who received a Royal Aeronautical Society Educational Award in 2003.
  4. 20th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Proceedings by C. Bil, J. Mo, J. Stjepandić; ISBN 9781614993025. See page 387: [23]
    C. Bil's professionalism has been covered in the above item.
Suggestion is to do a search on the keywords 'SORCER cloud' so that you can see that the subject is evidently notable. What the sources are is irrelevant for us at Wikipedia since the sources are (1) reliable and (2) independent of the subject since the editors and publishers are not related to SORCER. Evenmoreso, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.

Ivanov's and Bil's first book were published by Springer Science+Business Media which is indubitably a well-known reliable publisher.
Hussain's book was published by InTech, the "world's largest multidisciplinary open access publisher of books covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine." InTech's authors includes 2,277 authors from Top 100 Universities; 4,638 authors from Top 200 Universities; and 10,887 authors from Top 500 Universities.
Bil's second book was published by IOS Press which is, once again, an indubitably well-known reliable publisher.
So, all in all, we have proven that (1) the sources are reliable, (2) the publishers are reliable, (3) the sources are independent from SORCER, (4) the publishers are independent from SORCER and most importantly (5) SORCER has received significant coverage by multiple independent & reliable sources.
Case closed, keep.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. These are all collections from conferences, and as such the publisher is providing no additional editorial oversight: all accepted papers get put into hardcover. If the individual papers concerning SORCER establish notability, great, the case is indeed closed. But, in my opinion, these collections do not add to the notability of the individual papers. Garamond Lethet
c 08:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to look at the citation counts of the individual papers (I was not able to quickly track down the second book).
  1. Cloud Computing and Services Science contains the paper "Object-Oriented Service Clouds for Transdisciplinary Computing", which has been cited 4 times.
  2. Concurrent Engineering Approaches contains the paper "Service Oriented Programming for Design Space Exploration", which has not yet been cited.
  3. 20th ISPE contains the paper "Physics Based Distributed Collaborative Desgin ...", which has also not been cited.
If the wider computing community is not (yet!) citing this work, it's not clear to me why the topic is ripe for an encyclopedia article. Garamond Lethet
c 08:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Fiddle Faddle is going endless rounds on this (that's 2nd nomination for deletion made again by Fiddle Faddle …):

  1. asking for proves for notability, for proper resourcing etc.
  2. other folks are collecting proves
  3. Fiddle Faddle is nor reading neither discussing with any of arguments presented
  4. then Fiddle Faddle is asking again for proves and nominating for deletion

He nor read neither discuss with any of arguments summarized in previous one. Here are examples of his words (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER):

  • „I do not get particularly involved with Wikilawyering and chapter and verse”
  • „I will not engage with you on chapter and verse level”

So here let's tell it again: all proves You are asking for are above, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER and on Talk:SORCER. Discussion is done … what is missing is Fiddle Faddle understanding … Fiddle Faddle - If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Pawelpacewicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pawelpacewicz: I've not seen any proof of notability yet. Ahnoneemoos made an understandable mistake in thinking an (automatic) collection of primary literature from a conference conveyed additional notability beyond the individual papers. If you want to make an argument that publication in the peer-reviewed literature conveys notability, then make that argument. If it succeeds, there's a dozen articles I need to write on my own work. I suspect, though, that other editors want to see a little more traction in the wider community before considering a topic ripe for an article. When an article describing SORCER hits 100 citations, I'd argue that time has arrived. I'll ask again what I've asked a couple of time on the talk page: what paper describing SORCER has the highest citation count? Garamond Lethet
c 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pawelpacewicz: I have seen no proof of notability. You, as a WP:COI editor who is deeply involved in this project want this article here. You have not proved notability and thus the article has to go unless someone can. This is an encyclopaedia not a collection of projects that aren't WP:N. There is a high bar to step over. It's taken you two months to fail to prove notability. How many more months is appropriate? All conversations are as at the heading of this nomination for deletion. It's high time you deployed rigour rather than puffery. This article is 100% trade puffery. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Garamond Lethe - thank You for your feedback. I understand your proposal for notability measurement (more than 100 citations) ... but ... with all the respect ... that's your proposal for notability measurement ... but still it's not among wikipedia rules. I'm interested with your opinon on arguments collected on Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing which are showing it. Could You please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied?

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pawelpacewicz, that's an excellent question. My answer is that I'm only seeing WP:PRIMARY sources listed on the SORCER talk page, and WP:GNG states "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Personally, I'm willing to assume notability even in the absence of secondary literature if the citation counts in the primary literature are sufficiently high, but that's not the case here. Garamond Lethet
c 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Fiddle Faddle - If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.
Since begining - You did not gave any single answer to this question. You are just repeating that it's not proven ... but You are not explaining what's missing in presented proves. So this 2nd nomination does not make sense because during 1st one You stopped dialog ... looks like this time You will repeat the same scheme ... You will not come into dialog on what's missing in presented proves ...

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gentleman! No fighting here! This is the war room!  :-)   Everybody stay WP:NICE, if you don't mind, less sniping and less repetition will be much appreciated; focus on content, not contributor, as the old saying goes. Garamond, your concerns about citing conference papers are justified by the "with care" of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but not by the letter of WP:GNG. As for GNG, it *is* just a guideline, and I've collected the important bits from GoogleScholar, over on the talkpage. FIPER and SORCER are wikiNotable as computer aided engineering methinks, a branch of aerospace-engineering or industrial-engineering when dealt with in academia, and pretty much distinct from computer science (in the same way that applied math is distinct from pure math). Have a look-see please, if you will. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I still think the references satisfy WP:GNG even more so now, when they have been checked by 4 sets of eyes. I watched the video demonstration of the var-oriented mogramming system, read the 3 articles and I am now reading through the rest of the material, Jini, Javaspaces, domain specific languages etc, to get a better understanding of the system. I've read through most of the source references in the past month, and looked at the docs, and still believe it's worthy of inclusion in WP, but I know presents an immediate problem to a number of editors. The first is the sources and WP:COI issue. The latter I've think has been satisfied, the former, I think in this case is worrisome, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Like any idea of concept, WP:COI is applicable in some areas/subjects but works less well, and is less applicable is other areas. Software and software systems being one of them. In the consumer or public realm, where WP:COI works well, a product or idea is built and developed and when it becomes well known, WP can easily find sources for it. WP:COI doesn't work for software that well. Most software is envisioned, designed and built by a single person, with a small team around them, in a commercial environment. So the logical choice is the person who wrote the software but again that presents a problem, as third party views/ideas are excluded. I think if WP:COI were lessened somehow, say using an article metric (1..5) where articles creator could attach, for example a 5 enabling the primary individual to add content, 2 would be some content, 1 none. This would improve remarkably 70% of the software articles on WP in one go and fix articles which are blatantly crap. But that aside. The article itself presents a problem. Neologism's aside,(all computer jargon started as a neologism) the article needs rewritten. Not just this article, but additional content is needed is several other, perhaps as much as 50 other articles to enable it to sit comfortably, and be well linked. The [Programming] AFC explains in some detail how SORCER works. It should be merged into the article. It is an important article. WP can't just be stuff that's either celebrity driven listcruft/fan pages, or your average encyclopedia contents about dead emperors. It needs cutting edge articles to give it edge. The problem is we don't have anybody to actually do it. Who does it, if WP:COI scares away the primary editor. At the end of the day, the only way to really understand the system is to look at the code, which I intend to do. scope_creep talk 19:47 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The article still needs some work to resolve the ugly tags. But most can probably just go away. Not all refereed publications are strictly "primary". They are usually primary on the very particular topic of the paper, but this article seems to be about a number of efforts over a decade or more, not one limited project. And primary sources are fine for citations if the information in the article is indeed found in the article cited. The policy is that topics need a fair number of non-primary sources to be considered notable; not that they are outlawed altogether. They are often more reliable for example than blog postings which serve as sources for many other articles. W Nowicki (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reviewing the talk page, I'd say we have more than enough sources to establish the notability of FIPER (the original project) and the SORCER material could easily be made part of that article. Would a move be an acceptable compromise? Garamond Lethet
    c     19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, yes... see my reply to you above a few hours ago. We already have an article on the French fork of FIPER in mainspace (woefully unsourced... but with a bit of WP:GOOG about ten good ones turned up for me without trouble), and it could make sense to do a triple-merge. However, because the different projects are all basically the same codebase, just evolved for slightly different purposes (Chinese traffic-noise and USAF wing-design and Dassault automotive-design and SorcerSoft.com GUI-tools ... but all with the same CAE collaborative design-time automated-optimization) my thinking is that we should create a central article with the children and grandchildren of FIPER each given their own section, per giving credit where credit is WP:DUE, and then create SORCER as a redirect to FIPER#SORCER. (Since the Dassault stuff is news to me, I might change my mind, if it turns out that their codebase is now significantly divergent; also, I'm not sure how divergent the SORCER codebase is from the original FIPER... I know that SORCER'03 and SORCER'08 are architected quite distinctly.) That said, I *would* really rather close this AfD now (which is of course just a question of keep-versus-moveToAFC), and open a separate discussion later (for the stay-versus-mergeToFIPER), once we get some answers about the distinguishing characteristics of the kids/grandkids/cousins/etc of good old FIPER. Is this agreeable? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP most of ugly tags can be removed. I agree with most of opinions above that wikiNotability is proven. There are primary sources ... but it's not a problem because they are not alone ... we have here other documents which are secondary sources (confirmed by others above and on Talk:SORCER). In my opinion SORCER should stay as main article and FIPER should be part of SORCER article as SORCER is actual evolutionary version of FIPER/SORCER initiative/project. And in my opinion for Wikipedia it will be better to have articles describing actual state of any field (FIPER/SORCER in this case).

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep

It took me a few months to go through many SORCER papers. They are for sure sufficient for accepting notability of the innovative service-oriented research and the exiting system. I have to admit they are difficult to comprehend due to service antinomies caused by the different mindset of the concept of services and federations in SORCER. They are front-end services (exertions) and back-end federations. Normally a single service provider (e.g. app server) provides services at the backed while in SORCER it's a federation of service providers that is mapped to the from-end service easily created by end users (not programmers as it is done with back-end services like web services). In web services there is for example BPEL to compose service but that is done at the back-end by software developers. In SORCER exertion-oriented programming is a kind of BPEL but at the front-end treated as a DSL (domain-specific language) for the end users, not software developers - that's the key differentiator. If experienced editors can describe that well: front-end services and federations versus backs-end services hosted by app services and composed at the back-end on app servers then it will be a great article not only for me to learn more but for most people interested in new trends in service-oriented computing. I agree with 74.192.84.101 that SORCER is the CAE environment however the whole infrastructure: service-opertaing system and service front-end mogramming is pure computer science.Beavercreekful (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment

I would like to answer/comment list from the top of this article:

  1. Show me that this is notable?
  2. It is notable because it is notable
    • NOT TRUE - proofs for notability are available here:
  3. Give me the reference?
  4. The reference is somewhere in this list of probably non WP:RS material
    • NOT TRUE - list of references are available here:
      • Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing - summary of references - reviewed by Wikipedians
      • in this article above - i.e. opinion signed: "Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"
  5. If I find it, show me that this source is WP:RS?
  6. It must be reliable because I say it is reliable
    • NOT TRUE - discussion on reliability is available here:
      • Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing - together with references
      • in this article above - i.e. opinion signed as:
        • "Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"
        • "scope_creep talk 19:47 5 January 2014 (UTC)"
        • "W Nowicki (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"
  7. Return to number 1

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078521832"