Deletion of VetFran

Comment: I'm not convinced the subject (yet) passes . The http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2012/06/12/franchise-chains-recruit-veterans-problems/ Forbes reference and the http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/print-edition/2012/09/28/vetfran-program-helps-veterans-business.html Pittsburgh Business Times reference are okay, though the first is focussed on a different program. But some of the others are rubbish and should be removed. References 8 - 13 don't really relate to the subject at all and are just being used to "verify" the content in the last (unrelated) paragraph which might almost be considered an "attack" on another program. This para and the associated "references" need to be removed. I might go ahead and do that just to save someone else the angst. References that cite the organisation's own website could not be considered independent and so don't really count towards  or other notability guidelines. I really think we need one or two more references for this to make the grade. I will |be bold and remove some of the links that don't really add anything at all to the article and then perhaps we can have a discussion about those that do. It's a close-run thing and we're not far from ticking the boxes (in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:GNG||WP:BOLD)