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) 
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 

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.