Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Dong


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Two relists have not yielding additional comment and it does not appear consensus can be reached. KaisaL (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Joanna Dong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject is a Singaporean singer. The only significant coverage I found was this, all others were passing mentions. At this point, it passes neither WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally, the article seems to have been created by someone associated with the subject's record label. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant press coverage and thousands of hits on Google. Also IMDb. You can look for more.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:LOTSOFGHITS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Please show me some reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope you reflect on what you just said because this is exactly similar to what the colonialists said when they first came to our lands. We all know that had they not come in the first place, we might have been much better. As a "third world" editor, I totally object to having different (lower) standards of notability for "third world" articles Why? Because frankly, this strikes me as extremely patronising. It reinforces the age old myth that third world countries are somehow lower/less able than first world countries. I joined Wikipedia because I felt this was a neutral project where people with open minds collaborate. I liked the fact that standards are applied equally to everyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. I loved the fact that in AfDs, editors would vote purely on notability. It made me feel as an equal participant and not as a "third world editor" participating in a "first world" dominated project. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. But if you really want to try, then please treat "third world articles" equal to "first world articles". Equality is preferable to condescending pity. Which is why, I totally object to your vote - where no analysis of sources have been done, but a blanket statement has been provided which implies that "third world articles" deserve to be saved, because well, they are from the "third world". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Ipigott. Again, we have another Third World article being held to first world standards.  This one needs to also be lised at del sort for Asian peoples.  ( and,    Montanabw (talk)  02:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Again, we have another Third World article being held to first world standards. This one needs to also be lised at del sort for Asian peoples." What an absolutely condescending statement . Seriously, I didn't expect this from you. Colonialism died years ago for goodness sake. As a "Third world" person, I am sick and tired of people from the "First World" looking at us with pity. Do you know that this attitude of trying to "save Third world people" is how colonialism started in the first place? And now on Wikipedia we have the same attitude - let's save articles on people from the Third World because, you know, their standards of notability may not match ours (the first world's).


 * You misconstrued my statement, I think. I said what I said because I think that many articles on women and especially women from the third world are being unfairly targeted at AfD, and I think it is due in part to an unconscious systemic bias. (I also see a lot of "recentism" in some AfDs, though that isn't an issue here.) I also know that it is more difficult to locate the types of sources that the AfD crowd prefers for these articles, and sometimes the source material is not in English (Here, I see Chinese characters next to some of the articles about her, but not understanding Chinese, I cannot search farther for sources in that language), so verification is a challenge. It isn't holding anyone to a lower standard, its acknowledging reality.  I prefer to err on the side of inclusion. I  also know from working on issues related to women's history in the American West on and off for the last 30 years that sources on non-white, non-male people can often be more difficult to locate and when found are often dismissed as inadequate. So no patronization was intended,  I'm making a realistic statement.   Montanabw (talk)  05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification and I'm sorry for my outburst (I'm usually a calm person). Maybe I just hate the term "Third world" a bit too much (and somehow it triggered an emotional reaction). As for bias in Singapore, it is quite nuanced. English is the working language in Singapore and the vast majority of the population uses English (although we do have Chinese, Malay and Tamil media as well). In Singapore, all media is controlled by the government (except for certain blogs). Joanna Dong is associated with Mediacorp which runs all television stations here (and is one of the 2 main media companies in Singapore along with SPH). Artists who are affiliated with Mediacorp naturally get coverage in Mediacorp owned sources and SPH sources as well. The bias in Singapore is thus slightly different - actors NOT affiliated to Mediacorp tend to receive lower press coverage. What I see in this case is a Mediacorp affiliated artist who hasn't received enough coverage. (And this is not counting the fact that any Mediacorp related source in this case is not an independent source). In addition, the author of this article seems to have an undisclosed WP:FINANCIALCOI. While I do agree that there is a Systemic Bias in Wikipedia (particularly with Asian/African/Latin American topics/Women), I do not agree on lowering notability standards - especially in the case of contemporary subjects for whom sources are available. In addition, advocacy editing (particularly those with a financial COI) is another form of bias and I don't want to encourage it either. Overall in this case, I see Joanna Dong as a rising star who may be notable in a year or two. But right now this is too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources
 * Interview, Primary source. Also Sg Asia City is usually not used as a reliable source (it is a free ad-supported booklet which you can pick up at Malls around Singapore).
 * Is a website relying on user generated content. Also the content has been copied from Mediacorp's website which has a profile on Joanna Dong as she is affiliated to it.
 * Written by a Joanna Dong, but this is not the same Joanna Dong from Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess I am curious what standard Mediacorp uses to promote people in the first place (i.e. if being a part of their group confers a certain degree of talent or notability).  I'll go to "weak keep" pending further clarification...    Montanabw (talk)  08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, acting in a Mediacorp production (theatre, television, radio show) is not an indication of notability by itself. Mediacorp is the only TV broadcaster in Singapore, so they have a monopoly and they have many shows (not all of which are notable). An actor who acts in multiple notable productions is generally notable. Another indication is being nominated (more than once) for the Star Awards (see Star Awards 2016 for an example) where Mediacorp awards actors who have taken part in its productions. You can compare the coverage of Rui En and Jeanette Aw to "Joanna Dong". As a Mediacorp affiliated artiste, Joanna Dong should have had much more coverage, but that is not the case here. It should also be considered that Singapore is ultimately the size of NYC. It is much easier to get "national" coverage here. Despite all of these, Joanna has much less coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete instead as I have found a few links but there's at best still nothing particularly better, I could continue searching local news but this seems to suggest enough that there's simply nothing yet. SwisterTwister   talk  23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.