Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability/Self-published source usage report
False hits
The article Trafford Publishing legitimately discusses AuthorHouse, Xlibris and iUniverse as Trafford Publishing is itself a self-publisher, and the discussion is regarding market share amongst self-publishers and acquisitions. Maybe need to think about the false positives? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is right. And there are other problems with Aventine Press due to the search engine. So we have to figure out how to deal with those. Probably need a statement upfront. I will add that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is bloody beautiful though, well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, my computer did most of the work... History2007 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Over the yump?
IDK if it's been encountered yet, so let me raise one. Rallying uses the self-published Marathon de la Route 1931/1971 & Le Rallye Monte-Carlo au XXe Siècle as sources. (No publisher given, just the author's name.) They don't appear to be main sources, but they are being used several times on the page (& perhaps on other pages I haven't seen). Is it known yet if they are reliable? Should they come up, let me consider this a request it be addressed; I won't be watchlisting this page for an answer. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)