Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

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

This page reads as ongoing promotion/advertising and the there is a long standing history cross linked to cultural diplomacy and Amerika Haus Berlin both of which are also highly promotional of this group - and the page on Diplomacy has been altered in the same manner. There has been and remains an excessive level of self referencing upon claims which come from the organisation. The most recent edits with additions add to the promotional nature. There has also been a habit of presenting supposed upcoming events on the page - and then the events have no source as ever having occurred, leaving the page in a most misleading form. Constant IP editing and change - other Wikis have deleted entries due to promo concerns. The claims that the organisation are located in not just Berlin but also Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Ecuador are without source or merit. Past claims to links with high level groups such as US Department of State, the British Council and the European Union have all proved invalid. Repeated passing references to the company/organisation in media are not WP:NOTE. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has some independent references, and GNews and GBooks show that there are plenty of independent sources about this organization. If there are problems with promotion, the answer is to fix them (and yes, the Amerika Haus Berlin and cultural diplomacy articles could use a cleaning). --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

)

Not true. I have spent quite a few hours cleaning up the references in this article, and trying to find reliable sources, on Google Books and Google News. With all respect, I do not agree that there are PLENTY of sources: I couldn't find a single entry on Google Books that does more than mention the ICD once, in passing. At least 80 per cent of news references read like press releases; then there are a few short interviews. I haven't found any in-depth articles from serious political media. What is demonstrated by these references is that they exist and organize talks and receptions.

NoteInstitute Book Publication - I simply checked Google Books as you suggested, typed Cultural Diplomacy and found some interesting books. One of them is even mentioned in the institute wikipage (under the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy Section).

The name of the book is: Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy/ Edited by Jessica Gienow Hecht & Mark Donfried (The founder and executive director of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy).

You can find and read all book pages in google books here: http://books.google.de/books?id=a7F3Pi2zvr4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=cultural+diplomacy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ih7UT4KTF4X0sgaGo9GLDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cultural%20diplomacy&f=false

I also found it for sale in the publisher webpage (Berghahn – very respectful publisher/ an “authority in the field”): http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=GienowHechtSearching

An additional problem with keeping this article is that the ICD constantly interferes with it, and as I have found out, with related articles, so that keeping it up to the required standard becomes an endless task. Thus, recently, more promotional material has been copied from their website: a list of members of an advisory board;I see that when clicking on these persons' wiki articles, it is always stated that they are members of the ICD advisory board, with a reference to the ICD website. We are talking about former presidents and ministers; surely being a member of the ICD adv. board is not a relevant merit, the mention of it only serves to inflate the ICD's prominence. A "Press" section has been added (i.e. copied from their website), which only serves to illustrate the point I made above about the lack of serious sources; you will see this if you click on any of these links. SkaraB 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - AfD is for discussing the notability of a subject, not the quality of an article. That the article reads like an advert is inconsequential to this discussion unless you can prove that editor !voting here have a WP:COI and even that would only affect the perception of their opinions. For this AfD to end with a substantial Delete !votes, you would need to explain why every reference in the article cannot be used to establish notability under any subsection of WP:N. The burden of proof of non-notabilty lies with the nominator and Delete !voters. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there OlYeller21 You said

"For this AfD to end with a substantial Delete !votes, you would need to explain why every reference in the article cannot be used to establish notability under any subsection of WP:N. The burden of proof of non-notabilty lies with the nominator and Delete !voters."

It is an interesting comment. As a relative newbie and the person who has nominated, could you point me to the relevant wiki guidance on this matter - and in particular the "Burden Of Proof". I have already spent quite a lot of time looking for refs that are not primary sources - meet WP:V and can be used WP:NPOV - and I've been looking across multiple languages (English - French - German - Russian - and quite a few others) and simply can't find anything other than advertisements for this organisations private activities, or glancing references to association with events funded by other bodies.

I have traced "ONE" document of interest http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/449633817 which is apparently a dissertation on the organisation - held by one library globally and not referenced anywhere by any person since 2009. It's also listed on Google Books but there is no content visible - and without sight it can't be used as WP:V. Even so, one disertation does not WP:NOTE make.

I have noted that when you go hunting you keep finding papers and documents on the subject of Cultural Diplomacy held on the website of the IDC - and they have been copied as Pdf's and then headed "icd – institute for cultural diplomacy" with a year reference. But when you study these documents there is no relevance to the organisation. Here Is an Example. This does cause search engines to locate information, but the linkages created are not WP:NOTE. Of course It also takes time to actually read the documents before they can be excluded from WP:NOTE, just to make sure that there is not some missing gem hidden in the article or paper. No gems have been found. If they did exist, I'm sure they would have been used already. There is a definitive net/web presence but nothing within it that is WP:NOTE

I have been looking at WP:SPIP - WP:LISTN - WP:NRVE - WP:ORGSIG - and it would appear that all references are to other people and organisations and it's all about "Inherited Notability" which does not apply for Wiki.

It's as if they are a conference and events organisation business in a very niche market.

The list of people acting as "ICD Advisory Board" members is impressive at first sight, but when you check it against the ICD website you discover that such positions are in fact not WP:NOTE.

If you search for these advisory board members they have not had anything to say about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy - and you keep finding looping references from the person to ICD events involving the person - which just lead back to ICD as a primary source about the event and the person. That does raise concerns under WP:COI where a person has only appeared at an event due to Financial Remuneration.

It's like attempting to smash you way out of a maze of mirrors in an attempt to find an image - even one in crayon - an abstract even - that is WP:NOTE.

I'm happy to analyse and provide a critique on all the sources that are listed on the page - but can you advise where would be the best place to do that - here - on the talk page - somewhere else?

I have been over the page history and also looked carefully at all content - and it is interesting that when you do this you even find that Named Editors and Contributors are identified as employees of the Institute For Cultural Diplomacy WP:COI - else claims of copyright in wiki commons are false and that is rather worrying - and when you have a logical conundrum that either means WP:COI else false claims of copyright and even not WP:GOODFAITH.....?????

Not sure where to raise that issue? Not sure what to say and to who, as I don't want to end up falling foul of WP:OUTING or being accused of some weird form of "sleuthing" because I simply look at what is published and publicly available and then check it. I've even had to explain the matter in oblique language to one admin already! They got it - but it did take some time - and I'm not sure they grasped the full picture. I don't fancy being accused of Privacy Violations by those who presume others are less capable or insightful just because they are newbieish and unknown to others.

If there is a "Burden Of Proof" that I need to meet, as the person who nominated, please let me know what it is and where to reference on it and write it up. I have taken the name media-hound for a reason ... and I do know how to dig for References that meet Wiki standards.

If I could find the refs and cites, I would not have nominated - but If there is a step I've missed in that process, I'm happy to a make up for my deficit.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NoteAs suggested I checked the page and found some valid references about the Advisory Board of the institute for cultural diplomacy:

President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - Speech by the President of the ICD Advisory Board after his nomination (click on the content photo): http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_advisoryboard

Vice President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - See the official page of Erna Hennicot Schoepges (scroll to the bottom – unfortunately it is in French – so excuse my French) http://ehennicotschoepges.lu/cv/

An article about the nomination of Akua-dansua: http://newtimes.com.gh/story/akua-dansua-now-on-advisory-board-of-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy

There are many more in this page, you just need to look thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - From checking the history of this article, it seems that the following user: SkaraB, has created some sort of negative campaign to undermine the credibility of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its wiki page – this goes back to June 2011. For example in June 1st 2011, SkaraB tried to upload some controversial material to the page in question. Controversies that were immediately reverted for questioning by the administrator Arthur Rubin. This goes on for, up until the last deletion suggestion. The arguments and the annulment of dozens of independent links are absurd. It becomes clear, from just a five second check in youtube that over 200 high profiles individuals have given lectures and interviews for ICD and all are posted there. This is in addition to all of the links mentioned in the press section. Unfortunately, this is a compromise of the five pillars of Wikipedia. And it is important to inform other administrators immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Delete. I haven't found any of the dozens of references which are about the organization, or discuss it more than incidentally. There may be some, but they would need to be pointed out. A list of press releases does not a notable organization make. And, to reply to one of the Notes above, if an article cannot be made encyclopedic, it shouldn't exist, even if the organization were notable. It appears that permanent full protection would be required. This is not an argument for deletion, just a counter to one of the arguments to keep the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to OlYeller21

The problem with the burden of proof is that the organisation itself has now provided an enormous list of references; as MediaHound notes, it can be very time-consuming to tooth-comb each article for any possible scrap of relevance. There must be some limit to the lengths we have to go to, ESPECIALLY considering that these are references provided by the organisation itself. SkaraB 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkaraB Your passion is admirable, but your words are coming out the wrong way. It is not the responsibility of the ICD to provide references that meet Wiki standards. That responsibility lies solely with an editor - it comes under WP:CHALLENGED.

I get your passion - there is evidence that at least one editor is acting under WP:COI - but that is not insurmountable. I'm a Host over at the Teahouse and we deal with it all the time.

However, the pattern of editing in general, plus the continuous use of content that is Not WP:V - IP editing - removal of templates that should not be removed - that paints a different picture, that for me does raise many issues under WP:SELFPROMOTE. I may be right - I may be "SO" wrong . It is up to other editors to express views on that picture, which is why it has been listed here.

As as editor, I have taken the responsibility to check and verify references provided - and the references that do exists do not, in my opinion, meet WP:V. To me that is quite simple and straight forward. I have looked - I have searched - and I can't find sources or references that meet Wiki standards - as such the page does not meet the burden of third party verifiability that gives it a place in Wiki Land.

That is not a judgement on the organisation - just Wiki standards being applied. It is quite possible for valid organisations to exist - be doing exemplary work and still not meet WP:V. I know that from personal experience having worked with many of them. I have my concerns as to WP:COI + WP:V + WP:NOTE and that WP:ORGSIG also has to be considered. I do believe that the page fails to meet Wiki standards in many ways.

I did request rapid deletion, as I do feel that is warranted, but it was declined. I would prefer for my focus, and the focus of other editors, to be on areas that I see as more valid and Wiki Relevant. I've even today had to request a page be given protection to stop IP edits that are very deliberate and about misusing wiki land to create Religious and Sectarian trouble on other parts of the world. C'est la Vie!

But - it was me who Nominated ICD for deletion, so I'll take that on the chin, and accept the consensus. As an editor I do look at matters with great care - which is why I have had to point out your confusion of language. It is not up to the ICD to provide WP:V sources - that is the editor's responsibility.

You had concerns, which is why you raised an Rfc. I responded - assessed and made my position clear. I even removed some of the more delinquent content and references, having checked against standards. It has been frustrating that the Rfc gained so little response - but that is Wiki Land and how it works. I am aware that you have looked and found and cited - and that has been contested. You may feel hard done by as a result. Wiki Land can be like that! I'm also still stumbling about, trying to find my feet.

I have found it interesting, that your past conduct in using sources has been raised. For me the past is the past. As editors we all get it right and wrong - and you either live in the past or you progress. Grudge holding is not the Wiki way. It stops Wiki Land growing. Wiki can exist without any of us - WP:VESTED - which is why it's built upon standards and aspirations that all editors struggle with.

I have made my position as clear as I am able, at this time, and I feel you have done the same. But passion is no replacement for cool, calm and valid assessment. Ultimately, Wiki has a rule that trumps all others - WP:IAR - Ignore all rules, if doing so makes Wiki better. As it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'll place my faith in more experienced Wikipedians to make the right decision, based upon the evidence and the standards that apply. It's called WP:GOODFAITH. P^)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]