Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldenberg Institute

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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Germab version to the fact that the Goldenberg Institute is a private academic initiative which is sort of an oxymoron in Germab thinking. Now, as it may be true that the public perception is 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)[reply]