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)

Timtrent suggested Primary Sources issue. Fact that those are not primary sources were already proven on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. Due to that I'm removing cleanup tag. Here I'm copying related parts of that discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER:

1st EXAMPLE: let's take a look at reference #8 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-5520 It's written by:

Scott Burton, American Optimization, LLC; Manager Ph.D. AIAA SEnior Member

Edward Alyanak, Air Force Research Laboratory; Project Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Senior Member

Raymond Kolonay, Air Force Research Laboratory; Principal Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Associate Fellow

please note that it describes SORCER's application and therefore is a secondary source.

(...)

the document describes how SORCER is used to design next generation efficient spersonic air vehicles (ESAV) by Air Force Research Laboratory. Air Force Research Laboratory is again a very notable scientific research organization operated by the United States Air Force, operating since 16 years more details on Wikipedia

2nd EXAMPLE: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6051863&queryText%3DA+SOOA+Based+Distributed+Computing+Mechanism+for+Road+Traffic+Noise+Mapping written by academics from another University and different country it describes how SORCER is employed to build a highly flexible distributed network services space. It shows it's usage in a different discipline (manufacturing) than previous example (aerospace)

It describes usage of system (not system itself) in another discipline, another country, another University ...

Other EXAMPLES You can find other examples in the references section. Among them Ph.D. and master thesis from 2 different US based universities (Wright State university, University of Dayton) both of them are secondary sources.

(... then here is Fiddle Faddle answer - details are here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER...)

If I understand well the basis for your point of view is summarized by your statement "(..) a scientific paper is always a primary source" and all your further opinions are based on it.

And I do not think we can agree with this statement due to 2 reasons:

1st reason - beeing or not being Primary source is NOT DEFINED by the fact that a source is scientific/academic or not. It's clearly stated in Wikipedia article onPrimary source

2nd reason - scientific/academic sources have high value accorgdingly to Wikipedia rules described at Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Some_types_of_sources where it is clearly stated: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". It shows as well that scientific/academic publications have higher value than any newspaper (including Wall Street Journal mentioned by you).

more over fact that it's not primary source was confirmed by User:Scope creep member of WikiProject Computer science.

if You have any doubts please refer to full discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)