Talk:Jon Tucker

The claim that External links/Perennial websites requires the removal of the Linked in reference is in error
In my assessment, the optional guidelines citied by Yworo for his deletion of the linked in reference does not make sense in the case. The unofficial guidelines set out in WP:ELPEREN assert that Linkedin information is unencyclopedic as it requires an account, and tends to only contain information that is not appropriate for an article (e.g. phone numbers). This is not the case here as the article references the public Linkedin page of the subject (no account necessary to see), and is used to cite the subject's occupation, something that is indeed quite relevant for discussion of the subject. If I had more energy I would attempt to change this opinion essay but instead I will just take a stand on this single article. If you believe my interpretation is incorrect, please discuss it below before reverting this change. CooperDB (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that LinkedIn requires membership. Non-members see nothing. WP:ELPEREN is not unofficial, it is clarification of WP:EL, which already clearly excludes linking to LinkedIn. In addition, it can never be used as a reference for the simple reason that it is self-published by the subject of the article and therefore not a reliable source. If you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, and the external links noticeboard, you will find that there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus for this. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a specific direct link to the consensus discussion that LinkedIn is *never* a reliable source? I would not like to bother the noticeboard if there has already been a discussion on citing a Linkedin page for the purposes we have here. However, it would seem to me that the WP:SELFSOURCE specifically and clearly allows the citing of self-published material for innocuous purposes such as it is used here. WP:SELFSOURCE is clearly stated to apply to Twitter and Facebook so it makes no sense to that this social network is excluded arbitrarily. If you cannot provide a link to a discussion that is directly applicable I will revert your edits and bring this to the noticeboard as you requested. CooperDB (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are searchboxes on the noticeboards, use them. I already pointed out WP:ELPEREN, which is a summary of the consensus on the matter and clearly states that LinkedIn is not a reliable source and furthermore should not even be used in the external links section, because the content is only available to LinkedIn members. We do not drive traffic to membership sites. I've been herre over seven years, and I am quite certain of the consensus on the use of social networking sites. Another issue is that LinkedIn does not verify legal names. Anyone can create a profile with any name and we cannot use such profiles without verification that it really belongs to the subject. Just follow WP:ELPEREN, it's there for a reason. It's not really an essay, it's an accurate clarification of WP:RS with respect to several specific sites which are perennially questioned - as a shorthand answer so I don't have to explain all the details to you. Your dismissal of that page is out of hand. If the subject is notable, which I am beginning to question, there will be plenty of reliable biographical material from which to cite his occupation. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would still appreciated a link to such a discussion where consusus on this was reached. I find it quite strange that WP:SELFSOURCE, specifically allows minor biographical details to be referenced from Facebook. Yet you keep citing WP:ELPEREN, which is a summary of opinion of some editors on how this content guideline is to be interpreted, which arbitrarly excludes LinkedIn. From my point of view these two social networks are exactly the same - they both require subcription and have both public and private sections for self-published information. At the very least this inconsitency should be addressed on your WP:ELPEREN essay page, indicating why LinkedIn is excluded as a reliable source - right now there is no explanation for why it is excluded on this social network but allowed on Facebook. As for your question to notablility, I will see if I can find any other relevant references and then send the article to AFD to get a community decision on this issue. CooperDB (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)