In the article at http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Family_of_Secrets I included the following:

Frederick J. Graboske, the first supervisory archivist of the Nixon tapes^[1] writes “we need more books like this one — books that make us stop and think about where we are and how we got here. … If the CIA, or any other government agency, is capable of what Russ Baker posits in this book (I believe they are), then we are in critical danger of losing the freedoms guaranteed us under the Constitution.”^[2] and that “enough of these connections are sufficiently well-documented as to merit serious consideration”.^[3]

I have removed this text in the revision currently under review because it was disallowed on grounds that we do not generally admit Amazon reviews.

I urge that the gravitas of the chief archivist of the Nixon tapes merits an exception to this general rule. Reviews even in scholarly journals are not subject to editorial oversight as strictly as are articles, reviews are understood to express the opinions of the reviewer, and the context is a summary of the range of such opinions about the book which is the topic of the article.

Thank you for considering an exception to what would ordinarily be flagged by a script.
Bn (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the gravitas of the chief archivist of the Nixon tapes is so great that no one except a bookstore bothered to report what he said? Amazon is not a reliable source, and unless reliable third-party sources report what Graboske said, I see no reason why we should care. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... Because he wrote an Amazon review he is unimportant?

Rather, that's the only place I know of that he wrote a review. But if, for example, he were to write a review for George Mason University's History News Network <http://hnn.us/roundup/36.html>, would that suffice? They regularly publish reviews, and they recently republished Graboske's critique of Kutler's alteration of the historical record: "Frederick J. Graboske, Nixon Tapes Archivist, explains why he attacked Stanley Kutler". (The URL points to a page that links as well to extended context for Graboske's commentary.)
Bn (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already created live page: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Three_Rooms_Press, after seeing Wiki bot warning about deleting orphan images. Can I still get feedback on this new page? Also how to remove from Articles for Creation?

GetDaFacts (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article, and creating it for the sole purpose of hosting images that would otherwise be copyright violations isn't quite what Wikipedia articles are meant for. You list an impressive number of references, but not a single one of them provides significant third-party coverage of the publisher. Roughly half don't mention Three Rooms Press at all; the other half mention it in passing only. That is not the significant coverage needed to establish that the publisher is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I have thus proposed the article for deletion. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the proposed deletion notice. See comments copied here from the article's talk page, plus my additional comments below:

"Three Rooms Press is notable (1) because it has published several notable individuals listed in first paragraph of section titled "Publication History." Several of the citations include news articles announcing these publications as well as establishing the notability of the authors, (2) one of the two annuals of the press is now archived in the Museum of Modern Art Periodical and Recording Libraries. A link to MoMA archive catalog cited.'

For example there is pre-existing Wikipedia page for Mike Watts. His page seems solid and appears w/o any suggestion for improvement or deletion. He must be notable to included in wiki. The Three Rooms Press cites news and magazine articles about him and publication on his book. They mention Three Rooms Press as his publisher. His publisher is notable because he is notable.

George Wallace (poet) has two books published by Three Room Press. Unfortunately his wiki page needs editing. George Wallace was Suffolk County's (in New York) First Poet Laureate. He is also Winner of the CW Post Poetry Prize and the Poetry Kit Best Book award. He was named Writer in Residence at the Walt Whitman Birthplace in 2011. The cited Performing Arts Studio News article "Poet George Wallace Featured at The Depot" lists these credentials.

A third author published, Jackie Sheeler, has an article written about her in the New York Times labeling her Poet Laureate of Riker's Island. Don't you think that makes her notable?

Three Room Press is not exactly what I would call "start up." (1)They were founded in 1993. A list of their publications and authors is provided in the article. I went through that list and while I see they initially published the two founders and as chapbooks by 2008 they are publishing other folks and (2) some of folks they have published are notable individuals. (3) Now one of their two annuals is now part of MoMA's permanent archives. (4)And in 2012 they start to publish bi-lingual books for two notable writers. So they are going international.

I think they are deserving of attention.

GetDaFacts (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may be deserving of attention, but Wikipedia artices should only be written on topics that already have received significant attention by third-party sources. A couple of passing mentions isn't sufficient. Also, notability is not inherited, and publishing the works of notable authors does not automatically make a publisher notable. Huon (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for good "reliable" resources, trying to talk about a start-up? There's not a whole lot about them other than their main website and I'm worried that would be considered too advertorial to go to the main source. Do I just need to wait until they are more established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic1978 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTS WP:RS LionMans Account (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a little, reliable sources would be articles about the company in newspapers or reputable magazines (not press releases, though - those are not subject to editorial oversight and are not considered reliable). If the sources currently in the draft are the best to be found, you'll indeed have to wait until they are more established. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to publish my french article "Alexandre Sacha Putov" I am french and help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft cites no sources. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to allow our readers to verify the draft's content and to establish that Putov is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]