User talk:Seneca4BC

:Also, I just wanted to clarify re: Forbes. I know in the example on the Notability piece the Forbes piece is deemed not sufficient because it is from a non-staff contributor. But the piece already cited on the Future Processing page is from a staff contributor and it says in the piece it was in the print magazine too - so does that not count as significant, independent, reliable and secondary?

:Also, I just wanted to clarify re: Forbes. I know in the example on the Notability piece the Forbes piece is deemed not sufficient because it is from a non-staff contributor. But the piece already cited on the Future Processing page is from a staff contributor and it says in the piece it was in the print magazine too - so does that not count as significant, independent, reliable and secondary?

:Thank you in advance for your reply. [[User:Seneca4BC|Seneca4BC]] ([[User talk:Seneca4BC#top|talk]]) 13:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you in advance for your reply. [[User:Seneca4BC|Seneca4BC]] ([[User talk:Seneca4BC#top|talk]]) 13:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

::@[[User:Seneca4BC|Seneca4BC]] That Polish newspaper is very respectable, but it is an interview, so it is not going to work. Interviews are OK for sourcing uncontroversial details but otherwise it's in the same boat as Instagram. For Forbes, you are correct that it's complex, but sufficiently so that I tend to regard all of Forbes as less than reliable. Even when it is done by their core staff, a lot of their material seems promotional / PR / churnalism rather than cutting edge, independent journalism. So consequently, rightly or wrongly, I tend to disregard Forbes as a reliable source, it's not like the FT / Economist / Wyborcza. If there were 2 great sources contributing to corporate depth, plus Forbes as a third source, then I might be OK that, but that isn't the case here. Fundamentally as an encyclopedia we are a summary of reliable sources. Sources are not there to back text, it's the other way around: text flows from the sources. Now that said, I don't review an article twice, except in specific circumstances (e.g. a single error quickly corrected). So your next review will be from another set of eyes, and they will reach their own judgement about this. That's all fine and while you definitely don't want a lot of declined articles, one or two won't hurt you. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 13:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)