Talk:Earth 300

Improved draft
I have made an expanded version of this article at User:MartinPoulter/Earth 300, using a lot more sources and giving more accurate information about what Earth 300 is. Because of COI, I'd like another editor to review and paste in this new version if suitable. Happy to respond to any queries, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope contributors to this article and  don't mind being pinged to consider this request. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a long list of partners for a project that is so far from fruition. This is unnecessary, I think - just empty advertising-speak: "Jefferson has said the design is intended to inspire people to protect the Earth." But otherwise it seems reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for getting back to me. I have removed from the draft the "Jefferson has said..." sentence and I've removed a sentence from the section on partners. Do I have the go ahead to paste the draft into the article, or can you paste it yourself? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability tag
Thanks for taking an interest in this article. Please could you explain or undo this addition of a notability tag? The subject of the article has generated coverage in multiple sources that are independent of the subject. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello...The bulk of the sources provide fluff that reads as though cribbed from PRNewswire. The only one that approaches reporting is the Bloomberg piece, but even they don't dive into, say, who Olivera has underwriting the project — either handing him checks or marketing the so-called "traditional financial instruments" which would presumably based on future Earth 300 revenue. There's also no quote from an auditor, or suggestion that anyone from any outlet has reached out to KPMG. I've removed the tag for now but it seems like this project is the pipe dream of a grifter who happened to get lucky with a bit of press. — Mainly 22:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your improvements to the article, especially for finding the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists mention. I've fixed a couple of bits of inelegant wording, as you've fixed a lot of mine. I've had to base the article on the sources that are available, not sources that I wish existed. You'll note that my personal opinions on the project are nowhere evident: that's one marker, but of course not a total guarantee, of neutrality. For the record, I'm as surprised as you that so many known media outlets have reported on this topic based on effectively a single source, but they have and it's their decision to make. I'm sure there will be a lot more to add to the article in future when other reliable sources cover the topic. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)