Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance

I'm not sure how to address the issue of deletion of the page. We are a 501c3 and have been in existence since 2003. We have an annual event that was recognized in 2012 in Washington DC as part of a celebration of Sexual Freedom Day (September 23 - Victoria Woodhull's birthday).

We have spoken at the United Nations in Geneva during the Universal Periodic Review where "sexual freedom" was included in the discussions for the first time. http://www.woodhullalliance.org/2010/press-releases/wff-in-u-s-delegation-at-un-universal-periodic-review/

We Chair the Sexual Rights and Gender Justice Working Group for the US Human Rights Network, among the many, many roles we play in the sexual freedom movement. http://www.ushrnetwork.org/content/campaignsection/working-groupsaction-teams

We have successfully lobbied in Florida for various measures and were successful in lobbing in Washington, DC for retention of the domestic partner registry.

We have published two State of Sexual Freedom in the United States reports (2011 and 2012). We have conducted research with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

I don't understand how the person commenting can mark us for deletion. Has anyone checked our website? http://www.woodullalliance.org

We just launched a national initiative - the Family Matters Project (http://www.familymattersproject.org)

I just can't figure out how to respond to "After pruning, it became clear to me that this does not appear to be a notable organization. Please view the history to see what I removed--you'll find that I did not prune a single, relevant, reliable source. The COI is evident from the history as well, by the way. A Google News search revealed very, very little--the most reliable thing I found was a mention in an article from the Huffington Post, but that says nothing of substance about the organization. All of the hits in a Google Book search that I looked at are duds (like this one)--which leaves this study guide and this mention in a note. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)"  We have made every effort to bring this article into compliance. And a Google book search? We're not claiming we published a book - why search there?

I have no idea if this is even the proper format for responding. I'm not skilled in wikipedia entries and, right now, I'm the only one answering for the organization.

RicciLevyJustynashley (talk)