Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Vietnam Heritage


 * 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, although just barely, thanks to improvements during the course of the discussion. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Vietnam Heritage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. so they do a few presentations, but no real indepth coverage. . LibStar (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This is about an org based in Hanoi, we should be careful of the language gap. Unfortunately, I don't know Vietnamese. &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete zero indication of how this is notable. Zero references.  Google news search isn't bringing up anything to indicate that theere might be significant coverage looming out there. RadioFan (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty sad to have to resort to Frommer's, but I added that along with some of their publications as found in Gbooks. It's going to have a problem stemming not just from the language gap, but an internet-based-coverage gap. Altho it does get mentioned in a couple of embassy websites - New Zealand,, Belarus . Under the circumstances, I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep after Novickas' work. Still a little questionable; is WP a guidebook for tourists?  I can't see why else this should be included in it's current state.  That said, there's obviously room for improvement, perhaps by someone who's familiar with their publications. Jisakujien (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as User:Jisakujien said, there's room for improvement, but is seems to have at least barely ample notability.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:18, 2 April 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.