Talk:Jeremy Kauffman
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Primary sources in a BLP
Hello @David Gerard:,
Thank you for taking a deeper dive on this. From what I can tell, and in my experience, just because something is a "primary source" does not automatically rule out the inclusion of the source on a BLP. Per, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. For purposes of a political statement, advice, puffery, etc. Sure, that should not be included, but a basic biographical detail, for instance, that this figure is running currently in New Hampshire for United States Senate on an LP ticket. A "primary source" (such as the page for the BLP in question that is running), ought still to be included and is not prohibited from inclusion by the WP BLP established policies as I understand them. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The fact isn't even worth noting unless we can find an RS for it. Else it's just advertising. Has any independent third-party RS even noted this? - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Which means not crypto sources, wikis or non-RSes. Is there actual mainstream coverage of this fact? - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing
A lot of the "RSes" in this promotional BLP don't even mention Kauffman. Going through and cutting these - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is important to note that some sources, although supplementary and may not directly contribute to notability, are still appropriate for referencing information. If you could review/reconsider before removing them, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :) Riverbend21 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, not really. Long details on Odyssee are not about Kauffman. Long details on the SEC action against LBRY are not about Kauffman. You shouldn't use references for facts in the text that aren't about the article subject. All references should be independent third-party solid RSes insofar as is possible; excess and/or gratuitous use of primary sourcing should be avoided. Etc. - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)