Talk:Calvin Cheng

Anonymous Vandals

The anonymous vandals below need to be serious. A former member of a national parliament by itself is enough to justify notability.

Even prior to his appointment as NMP, his appointment as the Asian head of the world's largest model agency was already enough to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricialam (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Aricialam (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for speedy Delete:

- Person is not one of special interest - Information on this article appears to be more of a personal CV than an actual unbias informative wikipedia entry.182.52.1.24 (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --111.223.71.98 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This person is a political failure. Many people say one

I really don't think that reason alone justify the existence of this wiki entry. 180.180.95.225 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited references don't actually verify claims in article, problematic amount of exaggeration and/or unbacked claims

The article claims that "During his tenure, Cheng was at the forefront of trying to internationalise Asian beauty, and spearheaded efforts to find a global 'Asian' face"

However, the reference only discusses a single contest of 65 contestants, a mere 12 of which were asians, insufficient grounds for a claim as grandiose as "internationalising asian beauty" or "spearheading efforts" thereof. In fact, to some extent the fact that Cheng's firm hosted a competition with so few Asians contradicts the claim that he made efforts to promote them, and in the reference Cheng even openly casts doubts on their ability to win said competition. Huge authoritative claims requires equally authoritative references to back them up. The scale of the claim is utterly disproportionate to the reference. Either remove these grandiose claims or back them up with proper references.

Claim: Cheng led a nationwide effort to discover a Korean model that could compete internationally

The cited reference only notes Cheng's firm hosting a competition in Korea and that he went to Korea to judge some 40 models. No mention was made of the scope thereof, or the manner in which scouting was conducted, or the extent to which we was involved("led" is a very strong claim here, considering the number of appointments Cheng holds simultaneously at the same time).

Claim: "...." These remarks were to prove prescient in the late 2000s and early 2010s, when a rising China finally allowed the emergence of the world's first Chinese supermodel, Liu Wen

A single cherry-picked example of one model hardly proves any prescience, much less any purported correlation to economic effects. In actuality Cheng's claim was a motherhood statement so vague that any single example of an Asian model succeeding could be taken as vindication. The reference here is merely an interview with said cherry-picked token asian model.

Claim: From 2003 to 2005, Cheng was the Founding President of Singapore's modelling association,[13][14] which aimed to increase the pay and welfare of models in Singapore. The association successfully managed to increase model wages for shows by 60%, and for shoots by 33%[15]

This part of the article is clearly written to sway the reader in viewer in favour of Cheng prior to the revelation of his firm's indictment for price-fixing. The statistics presented were presented by none other than Cheng himself in his own personal defense, and are not backed up by any third-party citations or sources. The entire premise of increasing wages and noble intentions was made by Cheng and Cheng alone. It clearly not appropriate to state the claims of the accused party as objective truth on the issue. Clearly whoever included Cheng's defense into this article even before the indictment was mentioned was trying to sway the reader.

To begin with, this entire paragraph on the issue of price-fixing should be separated into its own segment rather than lumped into a biography.

Claim: Cheng revealed that the 'adverse effect' that the Competition Commission claimed was in fact most greatly felt by the Government-linked media giants of SPH and Mediacorp for model shoots, and the Government-backed Singapore Fashion Week and Singapore Fashion Festival for fashion shows. Cheng wrote, "Therefore in summary, the biggest 'clients' that were 'adversely affected' by our 'price-fixing' (which increased the wages of poor young people), was not some poor man on the street, but government owned media monopolies and government agencies themselves." [18]

These are again, scurrilous and dubious claims made Cheng in his own defense, entirely unsubstantiated by any third-party references of any sort of authority, and presented as "revelations". In the lack of objective information available, only the facts should be presented, that Cheng's firm was charged for price fixing, after which Cheng made an unbacked suggestion that this was part of a government ploy to benefit their own government-linked media outlets. This claim can be considered a conspiracy theory, and therefore needs an exonerating amount of evidence by way of references to justify as even noteworthy.

The Biography section is highly problematic, and clearly doesn't conform to the intellectually robust standards minimally demanded for wikipedia.