Talk:Tabitha Nauser

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)
 * 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. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then you obviously need to search more carefully, because your default search obviously do not include Singaporean sources.
 * http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainmentfeatures/view/1002309/1/.html
 * http://blogs.todayonline.com/idolchatter/tag/tabitha-nauser/
 * http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_506568.html
 * http://www.tnp.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,224081,00.html
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)