Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER

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 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. No activity for a week so relisting is not likely to help. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SORCER

[edit]
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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been uncertain about this article since it arrived here. My first instinct was CSD as a blatant advert, which was declined, so I allowed it to develop. I see now a huge bibliography (which I have dipped into out of curiosity), no references, and nothing to show me that the software is notable. So I come back to my first consideration that this is a non notable piece of software and an advertisement. Or perhaps it is a coatrack upon which to arrange the bibliography. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SORCER is the unique emerging federated service-oriended technology used for example to design the next generation of air vehicles. It is so advanced that a small group can work with it so far. Since nobody teaches the basics of SOOA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-object-oriented_architecture), so only a small group that studied at the SORCER Lab at TTU is familiar with the domain and all who graduated there mostly work for military organizations. The Multidisciplinary Science (MSTC) and Technology Center, Aerospace Systems Directorate, AFRL is using and developing SORCER. The recommended two recent papers by the Director of MSTC/AFRL (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808) and the paper on Aircraft Conceptual Design Application using SORCER (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826) is just a sampler to get more educated and appreciate the new SOOA technology and mogramming model.
Mike Sobolewski, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC) — Mwsobol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • In my opinion the information summarized by Professor Mike Sobolewski prooves that it's notable software. For example, it is used by Air Force Research Laboratory.
Moreover it's a new technology (as summarized by Prof. Mike Sobolewski) which extends existing technoloiges and to provide full picture of it I need more time. I plan to add new terms describing new scientific concepts around it into Wikipedia to make sure it will be objectively and fully presented (but it will need some time).
Thank You very much for Your remark about Bibliography - it was carrected already.
Is Prof. Mike Sobolewski explanation enough in your opinion to call it notable? if NOT - please explain what You mean by notable in details?
--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC) — Pawelpacewicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note that the bibliography has now been changed to be references. However, references such as these have inherent problems. Wikipedia finds scientific papers to be Primary Sources. The issue for notability (@Pawelpacewicz: you need to read this topic) is that it must be verified in WP:RS. Primary sources verify the existence of something, but they can not verify its notability.
There are further problems with these papers as references. I have not found very many that are not naming Mike Sobolewski as the author. I commend WP:ACADEME to this and any editor who hails from the world of Academe. Unfortunately I am drawn to the concern that the article is most definitely a coatrack for Mike Sobolewski's work, which concerns me and reinforces my opinion that we are dealing with blatant advertising here. It doesn't matter whether the gentleman is doing it himself or whether colleagues or even those unrelated to him are doing it, they are still using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion of not only SORCER but also of Mike Sobolewski. The portmanteau Wikipedia term for this is VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep provided the article gets totally redone. Not every project pushed by a professor or paid for by US taxpayers is notable, but this one seems to have been around long enough to accumulate some notability. Would also be fine to delete this one and start over without the promotion. But a good step would be to:
  1. Replace entire first section with a real lead section of one or two sentences giving context, with no promotional language nor inline links.
  2. Remove the "features" bullets and replace with a short prose description that gives a summary with wikilinks instead of jargon.
  3. Rewrite the History section into prose with Wikipedia style (past tense, no inline links, wiki links, etc.)
  4. Add some citations to sources not written by its promoter. This is the big one: if there are none, it is not notable no matter what is asserted.
  5. Remove "Requirements" since one can always get the latest from the web site.
But as it stands this a promotional web page, not a Wikipedia article, alas. W Nowicki (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no actual sources. Almost all the references are scientific articles from a single person, Mike Soboloweski Mwsobol. Were we to reconstruct the article to encyclopedic standards from all other available sources we would have a blank article.--Talain (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How you describe complex scientific concepts with no scientific references? I see more than dozen authors, not one name as indicated above and from many places: GE, AFRL/WPAFB, TTU, WSU, and even Chinese universities. I think sources are appropriate for this complex and innovative domain.
Beavercreekful (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Beavercreekful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment there is a current flurry of activity adding yet more scientific papers to the article. This needs to be viewed with care, since WP:RS is required to establish notability. All primary sources such as scientific papers do is to verify existence. With so many papers one wonders why no WP:RS stuff exists. The obvious conclusion seems to be that it lacks notability. The extra papers add credence to the coatrack hypothesis for people to hang up scientific papers on. Fiddle Faddle 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please compare the references and further reading in the CORBA Common Object Request Broker Architecture article. All those references are scientific by default, from computer science. Are we going to complain about it as well? My impression is that SORCER is much more complex than CORBA.

By the way more new references from GE, AFRL/WPAFB, and China are not scientific they are engineering, explain why and how SORCER is used to solve real world problems thus providing high notability of the article not only in science. Beavercreekful (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Fiddle Faddle put suggestion that it's "coatrack for Mike Sobolewski's work". I do not agree with this opinion.
  1. In What is not a coatrack there is clearly stated example showing that article about someone's work (in example from What is not a coatrack - moon landing) is not coatrack - the same is here
  2. It is not coatrack for Mr. Sobolewski - due to fact that article is mentioning Mr. Sobolewski only 3 times and only in history (but there it is legitimate) and in references (which in my opinion is legitimate as well)
  3. It is not a coatrack as topic described within this article is notable enough - which is prooven by references from
    1. various types of organizations (academic, business, gvernmental etc.)
    2. various countries (US, China, Poland etc.)
    3. various disciplines (programing, modeling, multidisciplinary design optimization, 2D/#d CFGD Design etc.)
    4. etc.
  4. Additionally it was developed, sponsoerd and used by very notbale organizations - to mention just few of them:
    1. NIST
    2. US Air Force
    3. GE Aircraft Engines
    4. Ochio University
    5. Texas Tech University
    6. Sun Microsystem
    7. Beijing Jiaotong University and other Universities
    8. etc.
  5. I understand Fiddle Faddle opinion that there's big numer of refernces ... but what to do with that? If we will decide to remove some of them - will it make it "less coatrack"??? I do not think so. In my opinion it's better to keep as for Wikipedia users it gives better view of described topic.
  6. I agree with opinion that is should be rewriten as suggesetd by W Nowicki.

--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this is so widely deployed and used that you think it is obviously notable then I invite you to find a single reliable secondary source that mentions it. Please! Because I can't find any.--Talain (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within those articles please review: authors and their organizations plus information within their content. There You can find plenty of information i.e.: NIST, Ochio Aerospace Institute, Ohio University, Stanford University, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Air Force Research Laboratory, American Optimization, Beijing Jiaotong University, etc. please review it and let me know if You have any more doubts :-) --Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Talain, your categorical statemnts and surprising to me.

According to the official Wikipedia description: 1. "deciding how to classify a source is not always an obvious decision" 2. "Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used" 3. "In some fields, a secondary source materials may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper"

Very well written article! Have you read any of the provided references? I did. All of them have in their introductions a kind of summary and comparison of other similar service-oriented approaches to SORCER. Therefore, based on 3) all of them can be considered as secondary sources as well. Would you please tell me which of the references are not secondary sources according to 3? --Danjarok (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Danjarok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • The topic needs to be addressed by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As Michael Sobolewski is the subject (or at least primary mover behind it) his academic papers (the vast majority of references) and the existence of his organizations (which is all of the ones attested to in the History section) cannot fulfill the requirement for determining notability. I'm also finding the creation of multiple new users writing in a similar voice to provide the appearance of manufacturing a false consensus and would suggest that you make certain you are following the applicable guidelines for honest discussion.--Talain (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Talain I understand Your concern about "sources independent of the subject" ... so I removed most of primary sources.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All I can see is a small group of COI single purpose account editors pushing a topic that has not been found in any WP:RS. While scientific papers prove that a thing exists they do not show that it is notable. If anyone can achieve demonstrating WP:N then I will withdraw my nomination. So far no-one has even come close. I don't care how many scientific papers verify that the thing exists, but not of them can show that it is notable.
I'm afraid that all I can see is material that seeks to enhance the reputations of the team involved. These editors should read WP:ACADEME Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Fiddle Faddle. Thank You very much for Your comment it seems to me however that your points (WP:RS, WP:N) were already expressed before and I thought I already answered them. Let me explain them in more details below:

In my opinion it is WP:RS and WP:N

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. All authors are Ph.D. and according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) it's strong argument for notability

So on this example You have:

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's notability proven by the fact that it's published by a very notable publisher IEEE Computer Society

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.

If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proofs are not showing sufficient notability 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) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Pawelpacewicz I do not get particularly involved with Wikilawyering and chapter and verse, I'm afraid, unless it is my lot to prove, under WP:BURDEN that an item is appropriate for inclusion. In my opinion, a scientific paper is always a primary source. No amount of primary sourcing shows genuine notability. I appreciate that you find this a disappointment on two levels, the first that I will not engage with you on chapter and verse level, and the second in my oft restated understanding that primary sources do not pass WP:RS, whatever their pedigree. The presenting of a paper at an event, however prestigious the event, is the presentation of a paper at a prestigious event. It does not render the item which is the subject of the paper to be notable. Interesting, yes, Notable, no. The difference is pedantic, but necessary.
SORCER may become notable one day. When it does then this article will become appropriate in some form. Show me SORCER today in the likes of the Wall Street Journal, or a specialist but reliable media outlet and I will withdraw my nomination at once and without hesitation, though it might behove you to ping me to let me know that such a source has been found. Until then I fear I must opt for deletion. Nothing is lost on WIkipedia. The article may be retrieved even if deleted. Work is not wasted, and, if the closure of this discussion does not go the way you hope, you have the option for WP:DRV, but please read the rules with care.
My opinion is one opinion. The admin who closes this discussion is duty bound to weigh the arguments, the article, and the referencing in reaching a decision. It is, however, not a ballot. Numeric tallies are misleading. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Dear Fiddle Faddle thank You for Your comment. With Your explanation the situation is more clear for me :-)
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:
anyway - thank You for your opinions as it helped us to make SORCER article better and in line with Wikipedia rules. You are more than welcome if You have any other suggestions to improve SORCER article.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dr. Michael Sobolewski [[1]] developed the SORCER. scope_creep talk 23:25 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the secondary source [[2]] which is detailed above and is included in the sources, and describes the use of the SORCER product by the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. The article itself needs a complete rewrite scope_creep talk 23:22 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Scope_creep thank You for your comment. I agree that it should be rewrite and I plan to do it. But now article is nominated for deletion due to different reasons (WP:RS and WP:N) so taking effort of rebuilding article is risky as we still do not know if it will exist. I think we are close to consensus for it. As soon as we will get decision "keep" I rewrite it. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think over my previous comment and I'll correct article without waiting for deletion decisions.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (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&oldid=1069069073"