Talk:SAP Research

NPOV dispute

This article has been in NPOV dispute for over a month but I don't see the case being made for it here. Can the person who tagged the article for not being neutral please step forward and make the case? Thanks. 207.105.30.44 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Would suggest that, going forward, a person who flags any page to be disputed must also immediately post the reason of doing so in the discussion. This will help others to verify. --203.77.177.69 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the NPOV dispute tag in a sec. For three months, no case has been made, and I must consider this a case of drive-by-tagging. If you disagree, please retag and make your case here. Thanks. Dirk Riehle (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus, no evidence in favour in terms of our article naming policy, and lots of other issues with the article to fix as a higher priority. Andrewa (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

---

SAP Research → SAP Global Research and Business Incubation – The name of the organization has changed from SAP Reserch to SAP Global Research and Business Incubation. I am working in this organization. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Saša Jeremić (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contributions and your disclosure of a potential conflict of interest. I'm not sure about this move, because official names aren't necessarily the names we use for article titles. It's more important to know how reliable English-language sources refer to the topic. This seems like the sort of situation where people would continue to refer to "SAP Research" rather than using the full name. I don't think this move is a good idea without evidence. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

notability tag

I've removed the notability=October 2011 from the issues tag... The organisation is notable and the article establishes this very convincingly. This information is neither adequately sourced nor expressed in encyclopedic terms, but it's there and accurate and those are other issues already covered by other tags.

As there's interest from at least one SAP insider, see RM above, I think it's important to flag exactly and accurately what the issues are, to encourage them to help with the fixes. Andrewa (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)