Talk:CleanTechnica

CleanTechnica is not a reliable source
Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#Cleantechnica, CleanTechnica is not a reliable source and therefore I'm not sure why it would warrant an article? Additionally, what sort of coverage has CleanTechnica gotten outside of its own niche space to warrant an article? DriveTribe for example has been featured in the Telegraph. QRep2020 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not CleanTechnica is reliable is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should have an article - we rightly have an article on The Daily Mail - the question is whether it is notable. I don't believe that the citations currently used would be sufficient to demonstrate notability, but there might be better sourcing out there - I'd suggest you have a look. If there is decent sourcing, you could improve the article by adding information based on those sources; if it doesn't exist, nominate to AfD. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Notability template should not have been removed. Providing examples of news sites including CT as a reference does not entail CT being notable. As explained at Notability (web), for something to be notable it "itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I am reinstating it. QRep2020 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your advice regarding notability is useful - although QRep2020 was too hasty when they categorically described CleanTechnica as unreliable.
 * Also to who tagged this article and who suggested how to improve it:
 * I followed your suggestions for improving the article (by showing how a wide range of main stream media rely on the subject as their source and how one notable person decided to make the subject a platform for their own writing) and proceeded to remove the notability tag - after which the tag was promptly reinstated.
 * I am not convinced of the justification for reinstating the tag, but will not involve myself directly in this judgment.
 * However, as you have been helpful so far, I will gladly take your additional suggestions for further improving the article - with the goal of demonstrating notability to the point where the tag can be removed. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

suggested that I think this article should be deleted[]. I'm going to state for the record that even though I think the source has questionable reliability and COIs related to the subjects of their articles, I think the notability can be established by the number of sources that cite claims from CT. Springee (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)