Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnam Centre

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. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable NGO that fails to satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows me google hits in primary unreliable sources such as this and this. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first glance I was going to vote delete because this organization seems too new to appear on Wikipedia. I did some research on Google and was able to find quite many independent reliable sources about this organization. I think this is all sources one can find.

• In Vietnamese: in-depth article, in-depth article, slightly mentioned, a film they made, half an article, their exhibition, also about that exhibition. Their clothing book project seems to be the most notable thing, which receives coverage from quite several media: [1] [2] expectations, fundraising announcement, in-depth article, in-depth article, in-depth article, in-depth article.
• In English: an article about a book they published, their clothing project. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article or posted above meet the criteria. They are either small mentions-in-passing or "in-depth" but only because they rely on information provided through interview or by the company. I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient independent sources. There is hardly any reporting of any organisation which is not informed by information provided by the organisationa and interviews with its people. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2021 (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.