Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Links on reliable sources added. The organization is well known in Vietnam.Ans-mo (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep has newspaper-derived references Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep... despite the fact that some of the "newspaper derived sources" the article claims are suspect. The source described as "Saigon Times Online" goes to here, which from a reading MAY be an accurate copy of an article from the Saigon Times but is not attributed as such and nor is it hosted on the Saigon Times website.  The "UNV News" link returns a 404 error.  The VietnamNet Bridge article seems all right though, and there's a lot of potentially reliable Google hits.  (I say potentially reliable - it's hard in this area, especially given the foreign language issues, to separate out reliable sources from the incestuous non-profit-organisation community - but the general sense I'm getting is that significant coverage in reliable independent sources is very likely to exist, if not in English then in other languages.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are useful sources therein, despite the Engrish. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.