Deletion of SORCER

Comment: Dear Fiddle Faddle. Thank You very much for Your comment it seems to me however that your points (, ) were already expressed before and I thought I already answered them. Let me explain them in more details below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: there is a current flurry of activity adding yet more scientific papers to the article. This needs to be viewed with care, since  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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

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 . While scientific papers prove that a thing ''exists'' they do not show that it is ''notable''. If anyone can achieve demonstrating  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)