Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Keller Services for the Blind


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Helen Keller Services for the Blind

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Rejected PROD. I can't find any sources on Google; granted, it might be possible that if you live closer to the organization, sources would be easier to find. A couple of sources have been added, but they are, at best, of questionable independence. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations,  and New York. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to keep. I appreciate that sourcing is a bit wobbly, but Google searching finds quite a lot of situations that indicate that reliable sources regard this institution as meaningful. For example, the New York Times chose to interview Rosemary Romano at great length about her role leading the organisation. We may not regard interviews as reliable in the sense that interviewees are biased, but an interview by NYT still demonstrates notability. Similarly, the White House reckons that Paul Boskind's work for this organisation makes him worthy of being one of president Biden's advisors on disability. Yes, everything I'm finding is an interview or a passing mention, but there's a lot of stuff out there suggesting that the word in general regards Helen Keller Services as a major organisation. The Japanese prime minister's spouse also thought it worth a visit! Elemimele (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be more than enough mentions of the institution where they've contributed or done clinical research trials. It seems notable, but I do admit the sourcing is minimal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that this article needs improvement for sources, but it does look notable. I poked around on jstor, and it looks like the organization is has enough credibility with other organizations to be the center of a deaf employment campaign for over a decade. Mason (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Elemimele, Oaktree b, and Mason. Appears to pass WP:BASIC. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2023 (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.