No, you're misunderstanding. I don't want the article to use the words "that's important!" I want the article to use sources and language that demonstrate that the topic is important enough to have been discussed in-depth outside of its own writings and/or that the IAG's work is important enough to be commonly relied on outside its own walls. On the topic of the IAG's standards, for example, it's one thing to say, "X creates standards for [blah]"; it's a much more useful thing to say or demonstrate that "X creates standards that are used widely throughout the industry and are acknowledged as reliable measurements of [blah]." Right now the article does the former, and what I'm trying to get across to you is that the latter is where notability is going to be established. You're welcome to re-submit the AFC as-is if you really think I'm utterly wrong on this, but it's a bit odd to run something through a review process and then refuse to believe the review you get.