This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
QRep2020 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. GirthSummit (blether)14:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Girth Summit: Your advice regarding notability is useful - although QRep2020 was too hasty when they categorically described CleanTechnica as unreliable.
Also to MarkH21 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)[reply]
Lklundin suggested that I think this article should be deleted[[1]]. 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)[reply]