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)

Instead of engaging in rhetoric, what would be useful would be to show using WP:RS that this thing has genuine notability, not some sort of contrived pseudo-notability from the perpetual rehashing of primary sources that seek to enhance the reputations of the participants in the programme. You have not achieved that so far. If you cannot do that then the article has no place here because it is not notable. So stop trying to win debating points. If you are convinced it is notable, prove it. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Fiddle Faddle

on the beginning could You please confirm if 2 separate signatures Timtrent (one who added cleanup tag) and Fiddle Faddle (one who supports this tag) are owned by the same person? Both signatures are pointing to the same profile. But fact that those are different signatures could mislead all of us to think that those are 2 different opinions. But it looks like it's one and the same opinion.

You put sentence: "If you are convinced it is notable, prove it"

Prove which You are asking is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER

unfortunately in your answer there is NO dialog with presented proofs (just NO with no argumentation). Could You please point out which of the presented proofs are not showing sufficient notability or not showing that sources are secondary and tertiary. Could You please do it 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) 12:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion closed as 'no consensus', and, as I am sure you are aware, this proves nothing. The closing admin was clear in his closure, and I suggest you re-read it with care. I am not about to enter into a debate with you over the minutiae of various chapters and verses here because it is for you to prove (see WP:BURDEN) not me to disprove.

I have given you some further insight on your own talk page about how Wikipedia and Academe are different. Please read it in detail and start to understand it.

If this thing is notable, it is up to you and others to prove that it is notable. If you add sources it is up to you to ensure that they pass WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you are in any doubt, especially because I perceive from your sentence constructions that English is not your native tongue, anything stated as a fact in the article requires a reference in WP:RS whether it has a primary source reference or not. Primary sources are allowed, sometimes encouraged, but they simply confirm that the primary authority says that something exists. Reliable sources confirm absolutely that something exists because they discuss it external to the fact/project/item being verified.

While primary sourcing may be acceptable as the sole sourcing mechanism in other worlds, in the world of Wikipedia WP:RS is king. So, in order for the article to be bolted in and not be in danger of future deletion, it is up to you and others to back any primary source with a reliable source.

Why is it up to you? Because you are the people who state that this is notable.

It may appear to you that I care passionately about deleting this article. Or it may appear that I am opposing you at every turn. Neither of these things are so. I care about the sourcing of the article. I don't care about SORCER one way or the other. If it is notable and can be verified as such I want it to remain. If it is notable and unsourced correctly I want it sourced correctly by someone competent to do so and to remain. If it is not notable I want it to go.

As a by-product you will have learned the skill of creation and editing of WIkipedia articles. Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

listing of sources that denote wikiNotability

Hello folks, I'm friends with Tim-aka-FiddleFaddle, they invited me over here to check things out. You can call me 74, nice to meet you.  :-)

Some brief preliminary notes. We have some jargon around here, called wikiNotability, which is *not* actually related to real-world colloquial notability (lowercase). It is a special jargon that means one thing and one thing only: to have a dedicated article here on wikipedia, an article which is about some topic such as the SORCER software, wikiNotability demands that this *specific* topic have

1. significant coverage
2. in multiple
3. independent
4. wikiReliable Sources

what those four key phrases actually mean

Significant means, not just a name-drop, not just a paragraph. It should be in-depth. It should be specifically about SORCER, not just incidentally about it. Multiple means, umm, multiple... but for instance, if Mike has published a three-part-series with a particular publisher in a particular year, that does NOT count as "multiple" by wikipedia standards. We want publications from multiple authors, using multiple publishers, and preferably in multiple years (or at least multiple months). Independent means that there is no blatant conflict of interest. Mike has a conflict of interest; he invented the stuff. Now, there is some flexibility here; for instance, if Mike were to get a book-deal with IDG, to publish SORCER for Dummies which was then sold in Barnes-and-Noble stores around the world, that does *not* count as COI. The fact-checking folks at IDG would make sure Mike was not doing anything *too* crazy in the book... and more importantly, the marketing department at IDG would be betting their reputations for making a profit that the topic of SORCER was in demand, enough to justify publishing the book. By contrast, if Mike were to self-publish a book, using one of the modern digital vanity press offerings such as Amazon or various other commercial services, that would *not* count as independent, any more than Mike paying a PR firm to send out paid-for-in-advance press releases would count. Similarly, if some journalist was to write a story about SORCER at a reasonably famous place like the Wall Street Journal, to help sell newspapers or magazines or whatever to the reading public, with the editorial department fact-checking the work, that would be independent by wikipedia standards; whereas, if the local paper just republishes a press-release from sorcersoftDotCom, that is *not* independent by wikipedia standards. The last one is the hard one. What does it mean to be a reliable source? Well, that's easy: truthful, factual, correct, accurate, and preferably unbiased. What does it mean to be wikiReliable? This is quite different! Truth is not key. Factual is important, but only in how we present the quotation here in wikipedia. Correctness and accuracy are preferable, but not required. Bias is fully permitted in the wikiReliable Source as long as we wikipedian editors rewrite the prose to neutrally reflect the position that the bulk of the Reliable Sources take. The main criteria, for being considered a Reliable Source, is that the information must be peer-reviewed by independent professionals in the field of inquiry (such as a journal publication), or alternatively, that the information must be fact-checked by independent editorial professionals in the publishing industry (newspaper/magazine/book/teevee/similar... does not matter if they are offline or online publications).

So the trouble here, seems to be that we have a lot of sources that *mention* SORCER. But to justify an article *about* SORCER specifically, we need some sources that are *about* SORCER specifically, either in whole or in part.

Furthermore, we have a lot of sources that are questionably-independent. Primary sources like scientific papers, which were published on a website, or presented at a conference, but which did not undergo independent peer-review (prior to publication in a respected academic journal), or did not undergo independent fact-checking (prior to publication in a mainstream journalistic or bookstore-like setting).

However, I also note that there were a bunch of PhD thesis projects... sometimes, the folks that act as the "review board" for the PhD thesis can be considered independent. Also, it *is* sometimes possible to use primary academic papers as reliable sources, despite the paper in question not undergoing peer-reviewed publication... if the paper is Widely Cited And Important In The Subfield.

Can somebody, probably Pawelpacewicz or Mwsobol, please provide me with the known sources that most closely match what I'm describing? Quantity is *not* important. We need three WP:RS things to prove wikiNotability. So give me the top five known sources, which are specifically about SORCER (preferably having it in the paper-title or a chapter-title), and which are are independent as possible, and which have undergone some kind of careful perusal by outsiders already (peer-review / fact-check / phd-thesis-committee-review / very-widely-cited). Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

infomercial

These are from the lead paragraph (which *must* specifically state why the topic is wikiNotable) plus from the first paragraph of the body.

1. in large complex IT environments into one dynamically manageable cloud
2. enable the end users to flexibly realize interactions of services
3. SORCER makes it easy to manage complexity of modern challenges (i.e. air vehicle design).
4. called exertions
5. The front-end services created by the end users are service collaborations
6. all seamlessly collaborating
7. understandable DSLs
8. the SOS makes that process expressions actualized

I stopped after two paragraphs. Two out of three sentences are using the wrong tone. Wikipedia should not sound like an infomercial. All these phrases need Reliable Sources that WP:PROVEIT, or take them out. Wikipedia should never use big-boy fancy-pants jargon-words, unless they are necessary to truly understand the topic. For instance, we have an article Medulla oblongata which uses the jargon-words vasomotor and autonomic. But look at the remainder of the intro-slash-summary-paragraph. It is all straightforward prose, that most tenth-graders and many fifth-graders could grok.

The medulla oblongata is the lower half of the brainstem. It is often referred to simply as the medulla. The medulla contains the cardiac, respiratory, vomiting and vasomotor centers and deals with autonomic, (involuntary) functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure. The bulb is an archaic term for the medulla oblongata; in modern clinical usage, it sometimes includes the pons as well. The word bulbar therefore refers to the nerves and tracts connected to the medulla, and also by association to the muscles thus innervated, those of the tongue, pharynx and larynx.

Compare that reasonably-jargon-free summary of the *Notability* and wider meaning of the medulla oblongata, with the same section from the current article.

SORCER (stands for Service ORiented Computing EnviRonment) is a computing platform that integrates various applications (i.e engineering systems) from various vendors, in large complex IT environments into one dynamically manageable cloud of services. With Java as the primary back-end language for implementing service providers, SORCER delivers front-end programming languages that enable the end users to flexibly realize interactions of services available within these SORCER service clouds. Allowing to create compound services on-the-fly with front-end programming SORCER makes it easy to manage complexity of modern challenges (i.e. air vehicle design).

Here is an article about an important piece of computer software. Guess what it says at the top? Relies on primary sources -- written like an advertisement. This is what *not* to do.

WildFly,[3] formerly known as JBoss AS, or simply JBoss, is an application server authored by JBoss, now developed by Red Hat. WildFly is written in Java and is executable on top of the Java Platform, Enterprise Edition (Java EE), which is available cross-platform. WildFly is free and open-source software, subject to the requirements of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1. The renaming to WildFly was done to reduce confusion. The renaming only affects the JBoss Application Server project. The JBoss Community or the Red Hat JBoss product line (with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform) all retain their names.[4]

Here is an article about an important piece of computer software. It uses wikipedia-style Reliable Sources (see specific defintion in subsection above), when it makes positive (or negative) claims.

SQLite (/ˌɛskjuːɛlˈlaɪt/ or /ˈsiːkwəl.laɪt/) is a relational database management system contained in a small (<700 KB) C programming library. In contrast to other database management systems, SQLite is not a separate process that is accessed from the client application, but an integral part of it. SQLite is ACID-compliant and implements most of the SQL standard, using a dynamically and weakly typed SQL syntax that does not guarantee the domain integrity. SQLite is a popular choice as embedded database for local/client storage in application software such as web browsers. It is arguably the most widely deployed database engine, as it is used today by several widespread browsers, operating systems, and embedded systems, among others. SQLite has many bindings to programming languages. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain.

Anybody that knows about software can read that, and understand it instantly. There is little taint of marketroid-speech. Even somebody knowing almost nothing about software can understand *most* of what the information says. SQLite is some kind of "database" (link). It is small. Unlike most databases it is not a separate "process" (oops... no link!). It is "ACID"(link) and "SQL-compliant"(link) and "weakly-typed"(missing link!), whatever those mean. It is an "embedded"(link) DB, popular for use in things like web browsers(overlink). The most widely deployed database[cite]. Has many "bindings"(link). FLOSS.[cite] There are some mistakes of omission... for example, SQLite is *slow* at some tasks, compared to more heavy-weight database solutions. There are some mildly-infomercial statements that need cites -- claim of being "small" and claim of being "popular" ... who says it is small, and who says it is popular, and why should wikipedia's readership care? WP:PROVEIT means prove that the claims is not merely truthful, but also WP:NOTEWORTHY.

Try and write the article in straightforward language, no invented jargon-words, no marketing-department-speechifying, use words that are as simple as possible but no simpler. Do not editorialize. Do not be positive. Do not show off. Be neutral. Be dry. Be factual. Be encyclopedic in tone, in focus, in what you include, in what you leave out. Write for the ninth-grader that is learning about fighter jets, ***never*** for the mid-level manager that is thinking about whether to use SORCER in their billion-dollar-project or not. The audience is students of knowledge seeking to be educated, never consumers of products seeking to be swayed. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I have attempted several of the paragraphs and simply see amesofwordsalljumbledtogether ↑ dıɥsɹǝpɐǝɹ ןɐnsn ɹno oʇ ʇou ʇnq 'ǝsuǝs ǝʞɐɯ ɥɔıɥʍ ɟo ʇsoɯ↓. The entire article needs to be copyedited to migrate it to language that enquiring but not knowledgeable minds can understand. I am still concerned that the first task is to show and prove notability though Fiddle Faddle 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Any old reference just will not do

Please do not adopt the lazy approach. When you add a reference do not just slam any old thing in, believing that this is actually a reference. Take the time to reference things properly. The reference itself must be reliable and must refer to the thing it purports to reference. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

notability and sourcing

Dear 74

thank you for your answer. I really appreciate the way you propose to communicate as it gives more comfort for both of us and builds dialog and consensus.

Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve this article. I agree with them but I think I should first follow Fiddle Faddle's suggestion "that the first task is to show and prove notability though"

I fully understand and agree with wikipedia rules - thanks to which the quality of articles is high and I want to follow that. This is why I prepared (it took a lot of my time - believe me) a detailed info proving notability and the fact that I mostly use secondary sources (It's available here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER). Unfortunately, till now from those who have doubts on notability and sources - there was no single comment showing directly what in their opinion is not enough within presented proves.

So as I appreciate our way of communication I would like to ask you for your opinion about the proves of notability and sourcing which I have provided here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. I encourage you to read all of it but if you would like to focus on proves only - they are listed with following dates/signatures:

• Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER you can find opinions of 2 members who are specializing in computing:

• User:Scope creep who is member of WikiProject Computer science. He reviewed one of sources and confirmed it's secondary source
• User:W Nowicki who is member of WikiProject Computing - gave "keep" vote

I hope You find them useful.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)