Talk:Tabitha Nauser

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hangon

This page has been created as a stub and it gets nominated for speedy delete just one minute later? Give the article some reasonable minutes to prove its encyclopaedic value.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested elsewhere, more thought went into it than you think. This was not nominated under WP:A1, it was nominated based on the lack of sources and notability (A7). FYI: An infobox-only article is not a stub, and those are often nominated under A1. At least I bothered to do a google search before reaching my conclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most appreciated if you may list all articles flagged for deletion after being created within one minute (baring obvious cases which contravene basic wikipedia policies of course). I am not sure how thorough a notability check you can do in one minute, but it certainly does take me more than one minute to do google searches and open up the links to check for notability.

Ultimately, I would expect individual editors to put aside ego, admit that a mistake has been made, and more on so that time and effort can be put into writing good articles than to bicker over non consequential issues.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from User_talk:Timneu22

I am amused that you can tag an article stub for deletion when it is just 1 minute old. Do you not think you need to be a tad more discerning and realistic?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, an article with a red-linked label, and all google hits are youtube or facebook. Whatever. I'm able to post a new article with a couple references showing importance on the first draft, can't you do the same? — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A red linked label means it is non-notable, when it is the label owned by Ken Lim, one of the main judges in Singapore Idol, and where SI winners automatically win contracts with them? No that certainly cannot be a valid way to judge notability, especially when articles are related to smaller countries where the editing community is much smaller.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added enough to prove the article is valid, but I still contend that I saw all google hits are youtube or facebook, which was my main reason for speedy. Also, you did not answer my question. — Timneu22 · talk 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you obviously need to search more carefully, because your default search obviously do not include Singaporean sources.

Each of the above represents some of Singapore's biggest media outlets (The Straits Times, The New Paper, MediaCorp Channel NewsAsia, Today, etc, all easily found in the first 20 search results.

Finally, in all my years of contributions in this website, I have never come across any policy, guideline, or anyone else demanding that it is a necessity to create an encyclopaedic article within the first edit. I would be most grateful if you may point out the necessary policy for my reference.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no such policy exists. I stand by my reasons for speedy (I did a google search), and I see that I was wrong. Satisfied? However, if you've been editing "all [these] years", you should know that references are the primary validation for articles; I know this, and I took the time to put them in the first draft. Sorry you can't. — Timneu22 · talk 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timneu22, like any responsible editor, I abide primarily by wikipedia policies and/or guidelines first and foremost before attempting to impose personal believes and judgements. This is nothing to do with my personal satisfaction, nor is this an avenue for you to throw your weight around by flagging the work of others as unsatisfactory while trumpeting your own as exemplary. Wikipedia is a community of editors with varying editing styles and abilities, and each member must respect that if you are to be respected as an individual. I believe you will do yourself good by at least reading up on how this website operates, so as to avoid antagonising other editors unnecessarily. As it is, you have already robbed me of time I would otherwise have used to add to the said article.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]