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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of Blindness Society of Metropolitan Washington[edit]

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

Promotional article for local organization with no general significance. Ref 1 does not mention the organization. Ref 2 is a directory. Ref 3 includes it among others in a study. Ref 4 I cannot find, but it would appear to be a directory. Ref 5 is a press release from an affiliated organization. Ref 6 is a directory. Everything else in Google appears to be a directory also, or at best a press release, such as this one in a neighborhood newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be an organization that does worthwhile work, but it isn't of encyclopedic interest. More to the point, I don't see how it passes either WP:NORG or the general notability guidelines. By the way, I was able to rescue that "Ref 4" -- it's a brief press release from the subject organization that was re-printed in an NIH newsletter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research and WP:ADVOCACY. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:34, 14 June 2017 (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.