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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humaninstitut[edit]

Humaninstitut (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)

This page seems to fail numerous Wikipedia criterion first and foremost notability (WP:N), which makes it a deletion, not a change candidate, also reliable sources (WP:RS) and advertising (WP:SOAP).

All sizeable contributions (that are not only correction of grammar, typos, categorization etc) come from accounts (all but one unregistered IPs) that have only contributed to this page. Use of sockpuppets is likely. Apart from the soapboxing in the article itself, all four external links are to the institute dubbed company (!).

Of eight sources only one (Embassy of Tajikistan) is independent from the Humanistitut. The Link to the University of Vienna is directly to the thesis of Mr. Witzeling jun. The Embassy of Tajikistan has no information on the Humaninstitut itself, but only cites a study they published. The section "Media" also cites use of Humaninstitut's studies in mass media. I suspect this is to feign notability, like the upload of the letter of recommendation by Mr. Ekstein. Both are not encyclopaedic content.

Only two pages in the article namespace link to this article. One by an unregistered IP that contributed only to Humaninstitut and placed a link to a Humaninstitut study on the Vienna Opera Ball article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.104.153.224. It is not even embedded into the article but merely added under external links. The second seems to be legitimate wikification of, again, a cited study. This seems to point to another problem of Humaninstitut, showing how and why this Wikipedia page is used as a cover: Unlike stated in the article the main business of Humaninstitut seems to be providing free surveys to the media, that are heavily biased in favor of their clients. They have also been accused of pressuring entities to pay for favorable results (source: https://cms.falter.at/falter/2013/02/05/das-ist-zum-teil-telefonseelsorge/) They are neither members or certified by the professional association of pollsters in Austria VMÖ, or of international ESOMAR.

Finally there are no interwiki links, not even to de Wikipedia. But the Lemma has been deleted twice (!) from de Wikipedia for lacking notability and soapboxing. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/11._April_2007 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16._Mai_2007 Menschpædia (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All references are 1st party. Apart from failing notability there doesn't seem to be anything there of encyclopaedic content. Amortias (T)(C) 15:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem to be notable, article is gigantic and obviously self-authored. Blythwood (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails notability and RS. Can't see what is particularly interesting about this organisation and the article fails to communicate basic encyclopedic information. Famous_dog (c) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.