Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldenberg Institute: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:24, 14 December 2015

Goldenberg Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the third party references are about the institute. Paul Charles Dubois is notable; Goldenberger probably is a;so, but that doesn't mean the institute is . DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact is not true that none of the third party references is about the intitute. There are two newspaper articles included as references, which is - compared to entries about other institution - quite something. Just compare it to the C.G. Jung Institute. The Goldenberg Institute has more proof of relevance in comparison to this and many other article. Furthermore, it's a non-profit organization. So also PR should not be an issue here. As the "no external reference claim" is wrong, I kindly ask for WP:WDAFD. rgds -Andreas Parker (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:57, 14 December 2015 edit Andreas Parker (talk \| contribs) 578 edits →‎Goldenberg Institute ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:24, 14 December 2015 edit undo Andreas Parker (talk \| contribs) 578 edits →‎Goldenberg Institute Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science\|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:SwisterTwister\|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)</small>		:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science\|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:SwisterTwister\|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)</small>

	::As a matter of fact is not true that none of the third party references is about the intitute. There are two newspaper articles included as references, which is - compared to entries about other institution - quite something. Just compare it to the [[C.G. Jung Institute]]. The [[Goldenberg Institute]] has more proof of relevance in comparison to this and many other article. Furthermore, it's a non-profit organization. So PR should not be an issue here. rgds -[[User:Andreas Parker\|Andreas Parker]] ([[User talk:Andreas Parker\|talk]]) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)		::As a matter of fact is not true that none of the third party references is about the intitute. There are two newspaper articles included as references, which is - compared to entries about other institution - quite something. Just compare it to the [[C.G. Jung Institute]]. The [[Goldenberg Institute]] has more proof of relevance in comparison to this and many other article. Furthermore, it's a non-profit organization. So also PR should not be an issue here. As the "no external reference claim" is wrong, I kindly ask for WP:WDAFD. rgds -[[User:Andreas Parker\|Andreas Parker]] ([[User talk:Andreas Parker\|talk]]) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)