Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (3rd nomination):

Some remark I copied from an article I found on the blog of Mr Benjamin Mako Hill as an remark. It seems rather neutral and interesting and definitely has some valid points: The posting: Beginning of citation: "Stumbling over your blog, I got interested in this subject and payed that institute a visit while on a short business trip to Berlin, being able to listen to a few lectures there. As much as I agree with you being annoyed about the legal threats, and as much as I agree, that anything in that direction is not the way to deal with that matter, I nevertheless don´t understand why anyone could come to the conclusion that this undertaking is “not worthy to be dealt with” in Wikipedia. I have seen lots of articles (and I use Wikipedia a lot for research purposes) that definitely where not worthy to be mentioned – especially compared to the institute´s sincere undertaking to bring people of all backgrounds, religions, social statuses together – and it seems, they are quite successful at it. After all when I paid this short visit, some highly acclaimed calibers of the political establishment appeared there (former prime minister of Ireland, Bertie Ahern, former Vice Chancellor of Austria Dr.Erhard Busek, fomer President of Rumania, the congenial counterpart of legendary Tschech President Waclav Havel after the opening of the iron curtain, Emil Constantinescu etc. etc.). Don´t get me wrong, I have no affiliation with that institute whatsoever, kind of tripped over that dispute via a Google search over the terms of “culture and politics” and got interested. Somewhere I read that supposedly the background and funding of the institute might be hidden – so it is the case with many NGO´s (do you know who exactly who is behind “attac”?) Of course not and I don´t care – just because of that, why should “attac” be mentioned in Wikipedia and not that Institute? There is no logical reason, unless personal ones – which, not being an expert with Wikipedia, I still think, should be of no significance to the subjekt. Rather difficult to follow decisions like these have also in Germany done harm to this wonderful project of Wikipedia. There is always a “smell of censorship” in the air. With over 26000 followers on facebook and a rather impressive website, I think, despite the also unworthy legal threats, it would make sense to somehow come to terms with them. A neutral article by someone who maybe had a chance to take part in one of the international seminars, makes sense. If he didn´t like it, it still should´t hinder anyone to include it in Wikipedia (not everybody likes Greenpeace, Attac, the NGO´s for god knows who, either – and one always finds some hair in the soup). Besides that, supposedly, they are officially accepted as an NGO organization. I hope this rather long remark wasn´t too time consuming for you, but I needed to share this with your statement – I will, having an entirely different life as a busy author, not get into any more details or respond any further. Your understanding is appreciated. Best regards from Hamburg, Robert." Citation End.