Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pawelpacewicz (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 3 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SORCER

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]

  • 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]
  • 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: [1]
    Dr. Ivanov is an Associate Professor at SUNY Empire State College who was awarded the SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching (see [2]). 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 [3]).
  2. Advances in Computer Science and IT by D M Akbar Hussain; ISBN 978-953-7619-51-0. See page 337: [4].
    Dr. Akbar Hussain is an Associate Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark (see [5]). He is also a member of the editorial board of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON COMPUTER ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IJCEIT) -- see [6]
  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: [7]
    Dr. Cees Bil is an Associate Professor at RMIT University (see [8]) 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: [9]
    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) This template must be substituted.[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]

  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=589004990"