Talk:Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primary source cleanup template

I've added a primary source cleanup template because nearly the entire article is summarized directly from the case, rather than from reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). The two secondary sources appear to be from law firms' thought leadership blogs, so they may also not be considered reliable. Also, without reliable and significant secondary sources, it isn't clear if this case meets notability standards (see WP:Notability). I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, so I'm not sure how much I can directly help, but I wanted to at least flag these issues. Politanvm ^talk 14:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fighterofmisinformation, I’ve restored the Primary Source template because the issues haven’t been addressed. While primary sources are acceptable for simple facts (e.g., filing dates, ruling, etc.), it’s discouraged to base the entire article on a primary source (From WP:PRIMARY: 5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.).

Both of the secondary sources are published in law firms’ thought leadership blogs, rather than a reliable secondary source (like a newspaper or academic journal). Further, the McCullough Robertson article is an opinion piece. Without reliable secondary sources, it isn’t clear that this case meets notability guidelines (from WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject)

If there are issues finding independent reliable sources, it might be worth getting feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Politanvm ^talk 15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with Australian media, but perhaps some of these would work?

The Age is considered reliable at WP:RSP, but I don't have a subscription. Politanvm ^talk 17:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]