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. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (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 is the third in a row of articles dedicated to the ICD. The first ones were deleted because of poor referencing, the bulk of references being to the ICD website and the majority of other references being to press releases from the ICD. The articles were therefore highly biased, and despite the unrelenting passion of some editors, notability could not be established through impartial sources. This is why they were deleted. This new article is shorter but marred by the same flaws. SkaraB 14:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for the moment this is based only on my past consideration of this organization, I will return to look more closely at the current references. But unless something major has changed, I am confident this organization does not clear the notability threshold. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the 3rd time. It was also repeatedly deleted on de:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, es:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, hu:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. This Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is basically hot air, namedropping of former soandsos and spin. This Verein (german association, can be created by anyone for free) which claims to be headquartered in Berlin was deleted twice from german WP. It was founded by a 21 year old and to quote from the old german AfD One-man operation. ICD Director: Mark Donfried, Internet editorial staff: Mark Donfried [9], "ICD Academic Board" with Mark Donfried, father Karl P. Donfried and a few former xyz [10] Interview with Dr. Karen Donfried ICD [11] etc. The newspaper Die Welt writes.. "in a single-room-office in Prenzlauer Berg sitting Marc Donfried, founder of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its unpaid supporters, 30 square meters, five desks, all gifts of nice people (...) there is no money." And regarding the ICD "offers various educational programs and postgraduate degrees in partnership with ..." that seems to be a lot of puffery, they can't offer german degrees. Also look at the concerted ICD-spamming of different WP, this year and last year. Delete and salt. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlasowa, I appreciate your comment and suspect that your characterization of the ICD is spot on; that is how I got on to them in the first place. But what we need is to demonstrate that there are no reliable sources that could help establish notability. Theoretically, Mark Donfried could be extremely influential even if he started out as a 21-year-old on 30 m2. Think of Bob Geldorf... He was young and went bankrupt after Live Aids. But his notability is easily established, contrary to that of M Donfried. Hope you get what I am trying to say... SkaraB 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SkaraB, on further consideration, I think in this case it is a waste of time for Wikipedia volunteers to seek out sources (unless somebody feels compelled to do so). Since this article has already been thoroughly discussed and critiqued in past deletion discussions, anybody who believes the organization meets the notability threshold has ample information on how to structure the article in a way that reflects that. As the article stands today, it almost looks like a candidate for speedy deletion -- its lead section does nothing to assert the significance of the organization. If anybody feels this organization has been sufficiently covered -- in depth, by multiple established, independent sources -- I would like to see them make that case here, and will consider it carefully. If nobody makes that case, this seems to me a clear "delete" decision. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, yeah I agree. As I understand it, Altasowa already proposed speedy deletion but was turned down, for whatever reasons. So I thought we needed to argue our case again; and I don't want it to seem as if the article is deleted for reasons that may seem subjective. Anyhow, thanks for the input!

SkaraB 11:37, 22 March 2013 (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.