


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:
