Talk:Zen Chong

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zen Chong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509005957/http://archive.mediacorptv.sg:80/celeb/zzen/ to http://archive.mediacorptv.sg/celeb/zzen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of awards
Justification was given quoting [] for removing awards, however, that page itself says "this page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear," hence putting it back in. Sethie (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not quote the page as policy. I only said it made the valid point that "there may be a conflict of interest if the award is presented in a small field [i.e. in our case the MediaCorp artists]". This is irrelevant of whether the page is relevant or not, the proposal it makes is clearly correct and clearly applies in this situation. The talk page there says that basically the proposal was abandoned because of instruction creep and because, unless in cases of IDHT, the general notability guidelines should be enough (WP:GNG). Quoting from there:

"Oh, there's a ton of awards that are nothing--I'm thinking especially of industry awards in K-pop and those kinds of things. And yes, they're used to establish notability, and unrighteously so. What gets my goat especially is the explosive proliferation of 'List of awards received by Person X': revolting, and just another example of fan trivia and table porn. But I don't have that much interest in the topic: it's a fringe interest to me. I have written up a couple of award articles, for awards that I know to be notable and I think I usually have decent sourcing for it. But that's really what it requires: good third-party sourcing, not notes in the tabloids that someone received this or that. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)"
 * Basically, exactly what I am saying, that the awards smell like "fan site trivia" and not anything notable. Since I'm quoting you just above, do you have anything extra to say on the matter? Has your opinion on the matter (after nearly 2 and a half years) changed? Thanks, 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh., is there any good reason to reinstate a set of awards without secondary sourcing, awards given out by a company to people under contract with them? Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Part of what is going on is an editor has nominated this page for deletion and is doing everything he/she can to to get it deleted..... first thing to be aware of as we explore this issue.


 * The next question to look at is- are the Star Awards notable, in their country- not ours. Are these awards a big deal over there? Then lets include them. Are they not? Then lets not include them. However lets not exclude them out of a bias based on how TV, awards, TV companies operate over here. Its very easy to dismiss something from another culture as insignificant (because it might seem insignificant or less then within our own cultural context/bias), however that completely violates NPOV.... wiki editors are starting to become aware of how WP:BIAS is important to be aware of as we attempt to create from NPOV.Sethie (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, WP isn't a fan site. Also, WP:ADHOM 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind actually answering to comments and not just expanding your comment? It makes the conversation difficult to follow. Back on topic. WP:BIAS does not override the necessity for quality, independent secondary sources. A newspaper reporting on events held by a parent company is not independent. There are plenty of television actors in Canada and the US too, yet not all of them have an article - same criteria applies whether one is from Singapore or from, I don't know, wherever. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:ADHOM applies to: 1)voting 2)on AFD's. 1)This is a talk page, not an AFD and 2)I have not made any votes on this page, therefore WP:ADHOM does not apply.


 * The above comment doesn't make sense to me in context of this discussion. This current discussion is whether or not the Star Awards should be included in this article, not whether or not this article should exist. That discussion belongs on the AFD, not on a talk page for the article!


 * Back to my comment, which are unanswered- are the Star Awards significant and notable within Singapore? If so, lets keep them! If not, let's not!Sethie (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comments are directly related to the content under discussion (the awards). Whether this is an AfD or not, WP:ADHOM applies, because it's the spirit of the rule which matters (whether it's WP policy or not, an ad hominem is still a fallacy and has no argumentative value). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Back to my comments, which continue to go unanswered, are the Star Awards significant and notable within Singapore? If so, lets keep them! If not, let's not. Sethie (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I said they are not significant since they are not awarded by an independent organization. Notable on their own as a subject of a WP article? Probably. Significant and usable as a criteria for determining notability (or even being included in the article) of those who received them? Not at all. That is what I have been saying since the beginning. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing that outside issues keep getting brought in to what could be a simple discussion.
 * In the above reply it was written "unable as a criteria for determining notability"- once again that belongs on the AFD, not here.
 * And then... the response that these awards, the actual issue at hand, are- Not significant, yet notable enough for their own article, yet not notable enough to be mentioned in another article? I am not sensing any logic to those distinctions.
 * I propose we wait till the AFD closes. It seems like there is a lot of tension and outside issues being brought in to what could be a very simple discussion. After that we can bring in some more experienced wikipedia editors. Sethie (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarifying: the topic of the awards itself is (probably) notable (since the awards have been covered in plenty of sources). However, they are not significant awards (because they are not independently awarded) and as such, they are not much more than a random piece of trivia and they are not sufficient to prove that somebody who received them is notable. For those same reasons, there is no reason to include them in the article - do we include 'employee of the month' awards somebody might have received? No - same thing about the "Star Awards" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think the topic is not notable you can go the AFD way. Removing whole tables from an article is vandalism. Hoverfish Talk 15:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarifying, again: the awards themselves are (probably) notable, since they have been covered in plenty of sources. However, including them in biographies of people who received them is not encyclopedic, because they are equivalent to "employee of the month" awards, given that they are awarded by the employer (i.e. Mediacorp). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me... if you feel they are not notable- then AFD the star oage awareds and if it is deleted, conversation over.

If they are notble, then, they're notable.... not sure if they have this expression in Canada, and in the US we talk about people trying to have their cake and eat it too... sounds more like trying to eat their cake and not swallow, or something. Sethie (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read again. I am not saying the awards are not notable (indeed, and despite some reservations as to the independence of the sources, they seem to be notable given the coverage they receive within Singapore). I am saying, and this is supported by sources (the lead of the article itself, to begin with), that they are awards given by an employer (Mediacorp) to its employees (actors under contract with Mediacorp). As such, they are not significant (i.e. it has no importance beside the fan trivia it generates) and they cannot be used to prove somebody has met WP:ANYBIO criterion no. 1, nor should they be included in articles of persons who received them because WP is not a fan site and fan trivia obviously does not go anywhere but on a fan site. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I reject your criteria for exclusion, and it seems your reject mine for inclusion- "are the Star Awards significant and notable within Singapore? If so, lets keep them! If not, let's not!" so, lets get some outside opinions. Sethie (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment at the appropriate WikiProject. Unsure whether we should also start an RfC on the matter or not. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of Category:Singaporean actors‎ and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)