![openrct2 and rct2 openrct2 and rct2](https://i.redd.it/yrl6lfv56ju21.png)
#OPENRCT2 AND RCT2 FREE#
Always ask yourself whether you would submit anything that remotely looks like that article to WP:FA or WP:GA (if you must, feel free just to caveat that question to "would these sources suffice at WP:FA or WP:GA?").
![openrct2 and rct2 openrct2 and rct2](https://i.redd.it/221l67hcdjqz.png)
The interview and the conference/academic papers might reasonably be added to provide support to the three 'news' sources, but that still leaves you sitting there with not a lot of "good" article. Renumbering your bullets for ease of reference: bullets 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 are primary (their relation to the game makers are what make them primary and thus bad for judging appropriate WEIGHT and the GNG) bullets 2, 3, and 4 are unreliable. None of the sources, besides a handful of the news sources, are reliable for establishing the appropriate weight of the article's content. TheCoffeeCoder ( talk) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I have deleted the information because the article does not meet Wikipedia's policy and guideline. OpenTTD, Freeciv and Bootstrap, they also rely heavily on primary sources yet are left intact. How can you delete them based on your own judgement alone? - TheCoffeeCoder ( talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC) After looking at similar pages, e.g. Izno ( talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I think most of the sources above are reliable, particularly the conference and academic sources. If we cannot produce those sources, then this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be merged or deleted as a result. TheCoffeeCoder ( talk) 21:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I care about whether we have an article weighted appropriately to verifiable, reliable, secondary sources, both policies. If you are querying the factual accuracy or standard of submission, please highlight specific areas that need improving rather than reverting the whole page to a pointless redirection that tells people nothing about the topic. You are not allowing the issue to even be discussed or for other editors to provide their input. There is already a warning at the top about the number of primary sources being high - surely this is sufficient. Source 16, 17, 18: Proof of OS distributionīy deleting the page, you are preventing anyone and everyone improving the article.Source 12, 25: Official announcements made on social media (by verified users).Source 19, 20: Secondary, public conferences.Source 8, 10, 24: Secondary news website.Source 7, 15: YouTube, official developer podcast hosted by third party (which stated by Wikipedia:VGRS is an allowed exception).Source 4: unofficial extended community.Source 1,2,3,6, 11, 13, 14: Primary and official - used for basic definition and information (no opinions or reviews), allowed as stated in ].There is, of course, room for improvement over time as more secondary sources appear. Other secondary sources exist, but those used are ones which cover the specific text being referenced. The following citations are primary sources that are purely used for definition (no mis-use) together with reliable secondary sources. that you "challenge" big parts, which were well backed and formulated is quite destructive and not intended in this form. Additionally can we back trivial facts like " licensed as gpl" by directly linking to github licenses etc. Secondary and tertiary sources are required for stronger statements which address gloabal impact and relevancy and truth. for that reason." this is a very reliable source on the intent (but not facts). Primary sources ARE reliable for own statements. Izno ( talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC) this is not correct. And even so, if all you've got are three sources, you're probably not over the WP:GNG-line to boot. Primary sources are almost categorically unreliable. Shaddim ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC) If material is challenged, you need to have a reliable source. uncontroversial, non-personal, trivial facts can supported carefully and defensive formulated with primary sources. Izno ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC) this is not correct. Everything must be verifiable to reliable secondary sources if challenged. As for the other two, that doesn't substantiate an article of this length. TheCoffeeCoder ( talk) 21:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Wordpress is not reliable. Mentioned by Shaddim in RCT2 (talk), there are some secondary sources that could be added to the article: