Talk:Tubb 2000

Needs secondary and tertiary sources

Is this article about a notable subject or should it be deleted? I.e. is it a real article or just commercial spam that needs to be deleted? I really can't tell from the sources given as references. To me it looks like all the references are either from the commercial website of the inventor or a related party.

That is just inviting someone to come along and put an article for deletion tag on it.

To show notability the editors would need to find published sources which are not from the the inventor or seller of the product. Sure they can put in a pertinent link from the inventor but that would just be for additional information, not to prove notability!

See, in no particular order:

Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the two primary sources, which coincidentally were to dead links and added one secondary source to cite. But this needs multiple citations from multiple sources. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]