Talk:SORCER

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... in my opinion it is in line with G11 Wikipedia:CSD#G11 as there is clearly stated: "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" if in Your opinion it is against neutral point of view - please point out which part of SORCER article violates it

--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's well written and appears to be neutral.

With apologies, though, it doesn't state what is significant about the product. I'm not going to delete it immediately for that reason. I think your work deserves an opportunity to say why the entry is worth including. This can be a fairly low threshold but the article needs some statement of why the subject is notable. --Tóraí (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it presents an open source project that has an over 10 year history as a scientific project developed by many universities. The references suggest a strong scientific background and a lot of new concepts in Computer Science that originated during the development of this project - these, however, have not been explained in detail and should be added soon.

All presented facts are verifiable All positions listed in Bibliography will be all added as explicitly verifiable reference in the text. They are highly recognized research results related to the new unique emerging technology currently used and expended at AFRL/WPAFB. It can be easily verified by listed recent papers in provider Bibliography.

The basic research was done at SORCER Lab Texas Tech University (verifiable): http://sorcersoft.org/about/timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This article relies on many valuable references from multiple sources ranging from: Texas Tech University, GE Global Research Center, AFRL/WPAFB, Wright State University, and Chinese universities. I think that it is false assumption that more references are needed to validate the originality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.68 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. ANy comments you wish to make in order to show why you believe the article should be retained should be made there. No points made here will be seen by the other participants. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Those who are adding and adding scientific papers as references should read WP:RS. The flurry of activity is laudable, but the article needs to have its notability established. No-one contests that the thing exists, the discussion is about notability. Primary sources are valueless in this regard. Fiddle Faddle 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article improved as suggested in the issues list

I believe that all suggestions to how improve the article have been addressed.

You can find additional explanations (i.e. references, primary sources, notability etc.) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER"

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

due to that I removed cleanup tags.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)