Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Deafax

Thank you for all your comments, however, I am really confused. It is an employee of Deafax writing the article as we are trying to share information about us on the Wikipedia site. I have read the advice on how to write articles and looked at similar organisations that work with Deaf people in the UK and can not see what I have written that is wrong. We have important information that we want to share with deaf and hearing people, for one example access to the deaf for training and testing in the European Computer Driving License; In partnership with BCS - British Computer Society and the ECDL foundation we developed the deaf friendly version. Last year we trained over 1500 deaf and hearing people, and have been doing that for over 20 years in training that is not often not attainable otherwise. This is not trying to advertise but to make information available to those it can directly benefit, and to those doing research.

As for the 'spurious source' how do you verify any information - you can check the UK Charity Commission or Companies House to see the consitution of Deafax unchanged for the last 23 years which states exactly the same as that written in the article. If you are referring to the link to the paper it is part of a series of WALTD (Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies for Disabled and Non-Disabled People) workshop papers presented at the ICALT 2007 : The 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies in Japan and available in their conference proceedings. DrKirsty (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. The main issue isn't so much the content of the article; it does read a bit like a press release but that could be fixed easily enough. The main concern is that your organization simply isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Please don't take this the wrong way; this is in no way a negative judgement of Deafax or the work that you're doing. It's just that to keep Wikipedia from being generally unwieldy, we have to limit articles to subjects that are well-known and/or unique in some important way. Deafax seems to be relatively obscure; there's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that it's not really fit for inclusion here.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)