Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Timtrent, 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)