- 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. No prejudice against a clean re-nomination if deemed necessary Star Mississippi 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
SAP Research
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- SAP Research ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG
DavidEfraim (
talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DavidEfraim ( talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I was thinking about redirecting to SAP; but then if you typed SAP Research, even getting no exact result in search your first suggestion would be SAP. So no need for a redirect; and since the article contains not much of value besides the marketing babbling, a merge would yield nothing either. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. SAP Research was quite a substantial organizational unit of SAP (400 employees, hundreds of millions of public funds raised AFAIK) but as its own org unit it was shutdown and now there is somehow SAP Innovation. So what I think should happen is that someone with the appropriate interest (not me!) should write an article with citations on the now historic-defunct SAP research of past times. Don't know whether that's notable (I think it is) but this remains to be seen once someone put in the work to write the article ;-) Dirk Riehle ( talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dirk Riehle: Good to see some original article creators are still around, and I'm sorry your article got nominated. However, I think that your point is flawed here: This article got nominated, as DavidEfraim pointed out above, because no reliable sources could be found about it. It might be that the organization is large, generates a lot of money – but still fails WP:GNG (or WP:CORP) because we have no sources about them. As it stands, the article has only some refs who are by SAP, which is not WP:INDEPENDENT. So if you want to keep this article, you need to present reasonable evidence that someone else will be able to fix the article (you are right that it doesn't have to be you). So, in order to solidify your vote, please find and present some quality sources, as I couldn't. If I had been able to, I would have voted keep. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet
WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
KeepBad faith nom by a sock HighKing ++ 19:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ HighKing: Out of curiosity, is this standard procedure? I see now that the nominatior was a sock; but I still believe this article clearly fails a WP:N check. Should such nominations be treated differently than regular noms? I mean, it would be kinda strange to have deletions fail simply because they were initiated by socks, which would go through if nominated by regular editors. – LordPickleII ( talk) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- LordPeterII, in my opinion if it isn't standard procedure, it should be. We are under siege by socks - either writing articles for cash or blackmailing companies to remove negative information. We've sock farms fighting among each other. I couldn't be bothered to reward a sock. If the article comes to a different editor's attention and is nominated, then I'll look at it. HighKing ++ 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ HighKing: Fair enough, I guess it's a stance to take. Somewhat offtopic: If you are bothered by socks this much, you might be interested in the RfC about the upcoming ArbCom elections, where denying votes to socks is being discussed: See here. – LordPickleII ( talk) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why thank you, heading straight over there. HighKing ++ 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a non-sock supported deletion, we cannot keep the article just because a sock was the nominator. We should return to checking on if this passes GNG or an appropriate SNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. No prejudice against a clean re-nomination if deemed necessary Star Mississippi 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
SAP Research
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- SAP Research ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG
DavidEfraim (
talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DavidEfraim ( talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I was thinking about redirecting to SAP; but then if you typed SAP Research, even getting no exact result in search your first suggestion would be SAP. So no need for a redirect; and since the article contains not much of value besides the marketing babbling, a merge would yield nothing either. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. SAP Research was quite a substantial organizational unit of SAP (400 employees, hundreds of millions of public funds raised AFAIK) but as its own org unit it was shutdown and now there is somehow SAP Innovation. So what I think should happen is that someone with the appropriate interest (not me!) should write an article with citations on the now historic-defunct SAP research of past times. Don't know whether that's notable (I think it is) but this remains to be seen once someone put in the work to write the article ;-) Dirk Riehle ( talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dirk Riehle: Good to see some original article creators are still around, and I'm sorry your article got nominated. However, I think that your point is flawed here: This article got nominated, as DavidEfraim pointed out above, because no reliable sources could be found about it. It might be that the organization is large, generates a lot of money – but still fails WP:GNG (or WP:CORP) because we have no sources about them. As it stands, the article has only some refs who are by SAP, which is not WP:INDEPENDENT. So if you want to keep this article, you need to present reasonable evidence that someone else will be able to fix the article (you are right that it doesn't have to be you). So, in order to solidify your vote, please find and present some quality sources, as I couldn't. If I had been able to, I would have voted keep. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet
WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
KeepBad faith nom by a sock HighKing ++ 19:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ HighKing: Out of curiosity, is this standard procedure? I see now that the nominatior was a sock; but I still believe this article clearly fails a WP:N check. Should such nominations be treated differently than regular noms? I mean, it would be kinda strange to have deletions fail simply because they were initiated by socks, which would go through if nominated by regular editors. – LordPickleII ( talk) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- LordPeterII, in my opinion if it isn't standard procedure, it should be. We are under siege by socks - either writing articles for cash or blackmailing companies to remove negative information. We've sock farms fighting among each other. I couldn't be bothered to reward a sock. If the article comes to a different editor's attention and is nominated, then I'll look at it. HighKing ++ 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ HighKing: Fair enough, I guess it's a stance to take. Somewhat offtopic: If you are bothered by socks this much, you might be interested in the RfC about the upcoming ArbCom elections, where denying votes to socks is being discussed: See here. – LordPickleII ( talk) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why thank you, heading straight over there. HighKing ++ 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a non-sock supported deletion, we cannot keep the article just because a sock was the nominator. We should return to checking on if this passes GNG or an appropriate SNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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.