This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
|
|
I'm declining this because ultimately the coverage just isn't here to really show how this book would warrant an entry. I had to remove links to Goodreads and Amazon, as neither can be used as a reliable source to show notability. Ratings on both sites can be easily swayed or altered - something that has been a point of contention with articles in the past. (IE, there was a campaign to lower the ratings for Bend, Not Break and there were campaigns by various authors to raise the ratings for other books.) Amazon is a merchant source, which should not be used as a source in any context. Their primary goal is to sell the reader something, so using this as a source can be seen as an endorsement by Wikipedia of either the product or the merchant itself. Odds are that you didn't mean to use it in this manner (I know you're not that type of editor), but it's still something to be cautious of.
Now aside from that, the issue with the rest of the sources is that the sources by large are not actually about the book but about the material that the book covers. The book is mentioned, but very briefly in passing. One news outlet did mention the book, but I don't know that this would really show notability for the book since it wasn't entirely about the book as much as it was about its author making these claims. The only source that does go into depth about the book is
this book review. If you could find more like this then that'd go a long way towards showing that the book does pass NBOOK, however right now there just isn't enough to justify this having its own article.
I'm also slightly concerned that this rehashes a lot of the information already in Eringer's article, but not enough to where I'd necessarily see this as a barrier for acceptance. I would recommend, however, that you do create some cites for various claims in the article that appear to have been pulled from the book. (IE, cite the claims with the appropriate page numbers from the book.) This would help deter concerns of original research, another one that I'm somewhat worried about but not enough to say that I'd decline the article on that basis alone. It's mostly just something that I'd recommend having just so the article isn't mercilessly pruned later.
In the end the fact is that the sourcing for this was just a little too weak for this to really warrant a page outside of its author for the time being. Have you checked with some of the academic journals? This seems like it'd be something that they'd probably review, so I'd be surprised if there weren't more sources out there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"In 2014, The Washington Post quoted from Ruse concerning unfounded allegations that Senator Menendez had underpaid a pair of unnamed prostitutes while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.[6] The Daily Caller later reported in 2013 that the story was fabricated by attorney Melanio Figueroa, who admits that he was paid US$5000 by a man named "Carlos" to find women who would support the allegations.[7] " - in 2014, the Post did something, then the Daily Caller did something in 2013, but it was later? Was a time machine involved? Did someone jump the international date line? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ruse (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
|
|
I'm declining this because ultimately the coverage just isn't here to really show how this book would warrant an entry. I had to remove links to Goodreads and Amazon, as neither can be used as a reliable source to show notability. Ratings on both sites can be easily swayed or altered - something that has been a point of contention with articles in the past. (IE, there was a campaign to lower the ratings for Bend, Not Break and there were campaigns by various authors to raise the ratings for other books.) Amazon is a merchant source, which should not be used as a source in any context. Their primary goal is to sell the reader something, so using this as a source can be seen as an endorsement by Wikipedia of either the product or the merchant itself. Odds are that you didn't mean to use it in this manner (I know you're not that type of editor), but it's still something to be cautious of.
Now aside from that, the issue with the rest of the sources is that the sources by large are not actually about the book but about the material that the book covers. The book is mentioned, but very briefly in passing. One news outlet did mention the book, but I don't know that this would really show notability for the book since it wasn't entirely about the book as much as it was about its author making these claims. The only source that does go into depth about the book is
this book review. If you could find more like this then that'd go a long way towards showing that the book does pass NBOOK, however right now there just isn't enough to justify this having its own article.
I'm also slightly concerned that this rehashes a lot of the information already in Eringer's article, but not enough to where I'd necessarily see this as a barrier for acceptance. I would recommend, however, that you do create some cites for various claims in the article that appear to have been pulled from the book. (IE, cite the claims with the appropriate page numbers from the book.) This would help deter concerns of original research, another one that I'm somewhat worried about but not enough to say that I'd decline the article on that basis alone. It's mostly just something that I'd recommend having just so the article isn't mercilessly pruned later.
In the end the fact is that the sourcing for this was just a little too weak for this to really warrant a page outside of its author for the time being. Have you checked with some of the academic journals? This seems like it'd be something that they'd probably review, so I'd be surprised if there weren't more sources out there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"In 2014, The Washington Post quoted from Ruse concerning unfounded allegations that Senator Menendez had underpaid a pair of unnamed prostitutes while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.[6] The Daily Caller later reported in 2013 that the story was fabricated by attorney Melanio Figueroa, who admits that he was paid US$5000 by a man named "Carlos" to find women who would support the allegations.[7] " - in 2014, the Post did something, then the Daily Caller did something in 2013, but it was later? Was a time machine involved? Did someone jump the international date line? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ruse (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)