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:

How to use openrct2