Talk:Dynaread Special Education Corporation

Dear Editor:

We have added a number of objective, third party, references to this article. These references demonstrate (a) that we exist, (b) what research we reference as underlaying our dyslexia remediation work, (c) that we as people exist and who some of us are by referencing our linkedin profiles, and (d) a listing of our screening tool in the Google Apps which shows that we exist as well and do what this page says we do. We are explicitly not a profit/revenue driven organization. I can commit to any further reference improvements that you would like to see.

Sincerely,

Dutch Dekkers


 * The issue is not whether you exist, it's whether the company is notable by Wikipedia criteria. This means that there should be significant coverage of the company in third-party, reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, newsletters, magazines, health web sites). Or, it's won a prominent award. See also WP:ORG for specific criteria for companies and organizations. ... disco spinster   talk  17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dutch replies - I was under the opinion that newspapers did not count. We will add a number of press coverages of us. Working on it, and grateful for your input. Thanks.


 * Dutch replies after his edits - We have added a few more references. Please note that we do not actively self-promote ourselves. If we did, we could show a host of newspaper articles (not hard to obtain). As it is, we work in the shadows, earning our keep by merits rather than propaganda :-)

Request - Please let me know if the article has now reached acceptable standards. If not, please advice what else we can possibly do to make it legitimate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Dekkers (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are newspaper articles, it's a good idea to cite them as well. You don't need to scan them and upload images, but the citations will allow interested users to look up the articles. ... disco spinster   talk  23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dutch replies - We will periodically update the page as new refs come in. I conclude from your comment that the article has reached acceptable status. If you agree, I can remove this talk, and we will comply 100% with your guidelines, and-as already stated- add new qualifying refs as they become available. Thank you for guarding standards. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Dekkers (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is acceptable (though that doesn't mean that others won't have concerns about it). However, there is no need to remove the posts on the talk page. Generally, unless the posts are disruptive, they shouldn't be removed, so as to preserve the history of the development of the article. ... disco spinster   talk  00:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dutch adds - We have cleaned up the text to remove/rewrite passages perceived as promotion. Advertising/promotion is not our intention. Please review the text and share if you believe the text is now clean (as it should be). Thank you for your editing input (13 December 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Dekkers (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dutch adds - We noted on Dec 14 that the header of the article TALK page indicated that the quality reached Start class, and that the article had been accepted in the Wikipedia Company class - Low importance. For this reason we removed the quality warnings from the top of the article page. We are committed to properly expand the article over time. My thank you to the editorial reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Dekkers (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)