Deletion of SORCER (2nd nomination)

Comment: Subject meets  which states that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I still think the references satisfy  even more so now, when they have been checked by 4 sets of eyes. I watched the video demonstration of the var-oriented mogramming system, read the 3 articles and I am now reading through the rest of the material, Jini, Javaspaces, domain specific languages etc, to get a better understanding of the system. I've read through most of the source references in the past month, and looked at the docs, and still believe it's worthy of inclusion in WP, but I know presents an immediate problem to a number of editors. The first is the sources and  issue. The latter I've think has been satisfied, the former, I think in this case is worrisome, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Like any idea of concept,  is applicable in some areas/subjects but works less well, and is less applicable is other areas. Software and software systems being one of them. In the consumer or public realm, where  works well, a product or idea is built and developed and when it becomes well known, WP can easily find sources for it.   doesn't work for software that well. Most software is envisioned, designed and built by a single person, with a small team around them, in a commercial environment. So the logical choice is the person who wrote the software but again that presents a problem, as third party views/ideas are excluded. I think if  were lessened somehow, say using an article metric (1..5) where articles creator could attach, for example a 5 enabling the primary individual to add content, 2 would be some content, 1 none.  This would improve remarkably 70% of the software articles on WP in one go and fix articles which are blatantly crap. But that aside. The article itself presents a problem. Neologism's aside,(all computer jargon started as a neologism) the article needs rewritten. Not just this article, but additional content is needed is several other, perhaps as much as 50 other articles to enable it to sit comfortably, and be well linked. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming|Exertion-oriented Programming AFC explains in some detail how SORCER works. It should be merged into the article.  It is an important article. WP can't just be stuff that's either celebrity driven listcruft/fan pages, or your average encyclopedia contents about dead emperors. It needs cutting edge articles to give it edge. The problem is we don't have anybody to actually do it. Who does it, if  scares away the primary editor.   At the end of the day, the only way to really understand the system is to look at the code, which I intend to do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COI)

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.  and  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)