Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldenberg Institute

Goldenberg Institute

Goldenberg Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

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

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

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

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

The argumentation "pro deleting" is based on a false perception and misleading. As a matter of fact is not true that none of the third party references is about the institute. There are three (!) 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 articles. 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination). rgds -Andreas Parker (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Of the three articles mentioned by Andreas Parker, one is not retrievable, neither via the indicated link nor through the search function of the Huffington Post page. The other two articles contain only trivial mentions of the organization, but no substantial coverage. There is no independent, verifiable source for any of the information on the organization; their own website obviously can't be regarded as such. Full disclosure: The corresponding article in the German wikipedia has been deleted today on my initiative. I would recommend to do it here, too. -- Framhein (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User Framheim's information is correct. However, the decision made by the German colleagues can also be considered as wrong. The Goldenberg Institute is a privately funded, nonprofit research entity, small but this is not an unusal fact in the field of psychology. But this is a German thing, a cultural issue. They trust only "the state" and state appproved entities with a lot of offical stamps and certificates. So I assume the German decision to delete the German version is linked to the fact that the Goldenberg Institute is a private academic initiative which is sort of an oxymoron in German thinking. Ok, that's their culture, may it be. But the Goldenberg Institute is not only active in Germany, it has ties to the UK, the US and Russia. So this is not a German matter at all and it's quite upsetting that the Germans want to impose their false decision to the English Wikipedia. It's more than irritating that a German editor who normally doesn't contribute to the English Wikipedia continues his vendetta against this topic around the globe. Very interesting, indeed, and very very German. Now, back to the facts: As it may be true that the public perception of the Institute is relatively low, the same is true for the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich which nobody tries to delete from anywhere. The Goldenberg Institut is nothing else. If the C.G. Jung Institute may exist in Wikipedia, the Goldenberg Institute should be treated equally. The C.G. Jung Institute is not more notable than the Goldenberg Institute, it is even commercial, which the Goldenberg Institute is not! It shares the typical features of many small research groups in the field of psychology. There is nothing abnormal compared to other such institutes, they all contribute to science. That's typical in psychology, which is - outside the universities - a matter of a lot of research done in small institutions. What's more: there is also no commercial aspect on the institutes site, no classes to book, no lecture to buy, nothing. I accept the decision of the German colleagues, but is was a false one. May it not be repeated here. Thanks --Andreas Parker (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Just one more hint towards the fact that the Goldenberg Institut is notable enough for Wikipedia. Just have a look at the Board of Directors and Trustees. It reads like a "who is who" of science and society (from Harvard professor to Vatican's scientist) and the projects of this whole thing are nonprofit, altruistic etc. (English version). Again, the deletion of the article in the German Wikipedia was a huge mistake, based on the above mentioned cultural reasons. Let at least take the international Wikipedia the right decision and not repeat the German way of destructing everything that is not state run. --Andreas Parker (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion from the German wikipedia are set out here: It didn't happen for dubious "cultural issues", but for lack of notability with a complete absence of external perception and sources (a standard, by the way, which I do not want to "impose" upon the English wikipedia in some imaginary "vendetta", but which I expected to be shared across all language versions). The references to articles published in the Huffington Post weren't considered as external because they all stem from authors of a "collective" called "Psychologie aktuell", which shows a substantial personal overlap with the Goldenberg Institute. I agree with this assessment, as the two organizations do not only share much of their leading personnel, but also (until two weeks ago) the same adress and even (until now) identical tax IDs. Neither do I hold the referenced book by Darius Barsfeld to be a relevant independent source, as he is co-founder and honorary president of the Goldenberg Institute and even owns the proprietary trade mark "Goldenberg". And as to their purportedly non-commercial nature, they tellingly admit on their website that they "support our members’ professional development". While there is of course nothing wrong with such an endeavour, it casts some doubt on repetitous claims of a purely altruistic motivation. -- Framhein (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So, even after your very German obsessive research we come back to the key question: what is the problem? You will find these issues with ALL privately run research institutions. You see a personal overlap, so yes, I see it as well. Almost all scientists earn money from jobs in the private sector and do altruistic work as well. So what in the world is so weird that some people who earn their money with one business on the one hand run an altruistic research institution on the other hand. Again, we have so many examples like the so often mentioned C.G. Jung Institut which is purely, extremely and totally commercial, but notable enough for Wikipedia. On the Goldenberg site: no commercial content, no classes, nothing to sell, none, nothing, zero. But you bring up as an argument a personal "overlap" with a company which is not the issue here. But, wait a second: This article is not about some other "collective" (or whatever), which by the way (I can also read) declares on its page that it spends its profit to whom? To Wikipedia! These "collective" guys are a bunch of socialists, communists or whatever that support Wikipedia. This is what I read, and what everybody can read with an open mind. But back to our main topic: This all is not about a publishing collective or a book of some completely unimportant author or the trademark Goldenberg. If you wouldn't have wasted your time with tax IDs (again such a terrible German attitude of sticking your nose into other peoples private business), you could have done what I did: read what the project of the Goldenberg Institutes are. And wonder, oh wonder, you will find NOTHING commercial but very notable persons. And I am not speaking of this unknown, maybe third class author you mention. Because if you would have read the site (instead "German stalking" other people's tax data) you would have had the chance to understand what these guys really do: research. Privately funded. So this is about an institute that clearly declares that its goals are research issues, not commerce - with a mostly notable board of trustees. But you, instead, are doubting the notability of a private academy in whose directorate world class people play a role with what? With the argument that there is an overlap with a publishing "collective" that supports Wikipedia?! Eh, wait a minute: That's neither illegal nor strange. This is cool. So what I can see in your argumentation is still only this typical German "everything private is evil attitude". And now you want to convince the rest of planet earth that the German man knows it best, again. Well, you seem to be, sorry to say that, strangely obsessed with fighting this topic. Why don't you invest your energy in the misuse of the C.G. Jung Institute's presence on Wikipedia which is purely commercial. Instead you do an indepth research into a harmless topic and construct a non-notability case with very clever pseudo-logical thought chains, because of some personal overlap? And even if - it's not the fact if you ask me - but even in case the Goldenberg Institute was commercial: what's the point? It is a research institute, dealing with psychological topics that others ignore, and all this with a very notable board, at least in parts. Sorry, it's not meant as an insult. But your argumentation is so out of this world that it may make sense in Germany, but honestly, you cannot deny two simple facts: 1) Research institute into topics others don't deal with, 2) a partly very notably board of trustees. The rest is irrelevant. What remains is the question: what are your personal interests in this matter? Mine are that I admire Paul Charles Dubois that these guys do reasearch about. What what is the reason that makes you twisting the facts? I can only assume that there IS a personal vendetta between you and them going on in real life. Otherwise I would consider it sort of stalking that you do such indepth research into TAX IDs. That's sick, somehow... Now I would recommend some non-German wise person somwhere from planet earth to decide the fate of this article. Because I strongly doubt that user Framheim's discussion with me will get much nicer if we continue. --Andreas Parker (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)