Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Ge (actress)


 * 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 delete. Izno (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ma Ge (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any (non-Chinese) sources to show the notability. Same user is spamming this article to every-language Wikipedia. Stryn (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Stryn (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

---> Re: Stryn

Whoever claims the notability for this article must specify what types of any other language, except for English or Chinese, can always satisfy the criteria for the referenced articles to be written in, as long as the claimer believes that any written-in-English information can always accomplish it. I require the claimer above to give the definition of the word "spamming": over HOW MANY variations of the original translated article are determined to be "violations" against the Wikipedia guidelines. For example, the 35th president of the United States of America; John F. Kennedy has been translated in 29 languages, so it seems the claimer above would love to mark the 28 variations out of the original English article as the "spams". If the claimer thinks that any non-English reference sites were short of notability on the English Wikipedia, the entire audience of it might be diagnosed from critical multi-linguistic disabilities. Besides, it is theoretically impossible for a living user like me to publish each translated version of an article on "every-language" of Wikipedia server.

Supremarguax 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep NetEase, Tencent QQ, Sohu, and Xinhua (via syndicate), constitute WP:RS. Nominator has demonstrated no awareness of WP:NONENG. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources and the article likely being created by a COI editor. Just as a short breakdown of why the sources that have been provided are lacking, Tencent QQ is a paid video streaming platform and the link to it isn't about her anyway. so it doesn't work. The NetEase source might work, but then they own Tencent QQ and the article smells like a non-neutral puff piece. For some weird reason the Xinhua (via syndicate) article is also to NetEase (likely more promo reasons involved) and is just as puffy. While the SoHu "article" is about "City Lover" and Ma Yanting and Ma Ge isn't mentioned in it. Maybe they are the same person, I don't really know. They could be the same person (Ma Ge did play in the film). Even if they are the same person SoHu is an entertainment blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources. So, that's really it. Essentially nothing. Except maybe the one NetEase promo puff piece if I wanted to be generous, but I don't and it takes "multiple" sources for someone to be notable anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

---> Re: Adamant1

Please avoid simply utterring your delusions without submitting any official definitions from Wikipedia guidelines to support your arbitrary assumptions above:


 * "reliable sources (Explain what can be a definitively reliable source on Wikipedia quoting references)"


 * "likely being created by a COI editor (TRUTH: I translated it without using it)"


 * "the link to it isn't about her (TRUTH: Tencent QQ is always proving both the information and the full streaming movie for free, in which she co-starred in 2016: Dispel Demon)"


 * "article smells like a non-neutral puff piece (Information has no smell on Wikipedia at all)"
 * "For some weird reason (Unspecific expression to downgrade your reliability)"


 * "via syndicate (Show the evidence that a syndicate is controlling the website and provide the definition of your word syndicate)"


 * "Ma Ge isn't mentioned in it (TRUTH: Ma Yanting is identical to Ma Ge who played a role called Yu Fang in the drama series)"


 * "SoHu is an entertainment blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources (You must try to establish a decisive border line between some perfectly reliable encyclopedic sources and the consequently stored information on weblog services, before disregarding blogs.)"


 * "Essentially nothing (TRUTH: This article is not blanked obviously)"

As I listed here, your opinion is full of dogmatic arrogance, and there is NEITHER objectivity nor neutrality for persuading everyone to delete this article after all.

Supremarguax 15:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, you must be a real special kind of snowflake. I guess that's how people who's pay checks depend on articles not being deleted would act though. Anyway, first of all, I don't need to "explain" anything. Especially what a reliable source. The guidelines do that accurately enough and anyone that can't find and read over them on their own shouldn't be participating in AfDs.


 * Second, your likely a COI editor because you've only edited her page a few others that are closely related to her. Your clearly not a recreational Wikipedia editor who is doing it just because your interested in Chinese actresses and films. That you "translated it without using it" (whatever that means) is completely irrelevant. IMO, your overly personal and way aggressive response just confirms it.


 * Third, "Xinhua (via syndicate)" was a direct quote from CaradhrasAiguo who said "and Xinhua (via syndicate), constitute WP:RS." Obviously, it had nothing to do with a "syndicate." Someone with a basic level of English understanding would know "syndication" refers to the sale or licensing of material for publication. I could see where you wouldn't know that though, what with you being a paid editor from China and all that.


 * I'm not going to respond to your comments about Tencent QQ and Blogs, because anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the guidelines knows why both are not reliable sources. Plus, like I said I'm not going to waste my time explaining the guidelines to a SPA COI editor such as you. You can find them pretty easily on your own anyway. If you really want the article to be kept, I suggest you read up on them so you have a better line of time for the next person that votes delete then "your a horrible person." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

---> Re: Adamant1

First, again I pick some parts of your latest statement above against the validated facts I own:


 * "people who's pay checks depend on articles not being deleted would act (If I were a verified paid editor on Wikipedia, I thoroughly welcome you to disclose my PayPal ID, bank account number and crypto-currency wallet addresses that were used for the payments)"


 * "The guidelines do that accurately enough (There is always room for discussing conflicts on deletion-pending articles on Wikipedia because the guidelines are too imperfect to provide any absolute definitions of actions to solve issues)"


 * "Your clearly not a recreational Wikipedia editor who is doing it (What happens if anyone who has neither any career of deeply researching nor any interest in the topic created a new article on Wikipedia? It is practically impossible for an author to create a new page without any interest in it but just based on robotic neutrality, as long as the author is a living human being)"


 * "anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the guidelines knows why both are not reliable sources (Submit the lists of the officially certified unreliable sources on Wikipedia before criticizing Tencent QQ and Blogs)"

Second, I feel sorry for the partially corrupt grammatical structures of your written English phrases as if they were automatically transferred from your spoken words:


 * how people who's pay checks depend ---> how people whose pay checks depend


 * what a reliable source ---> what a reliable source is


 * your likely a COI editor ---> you are likely a COI editor


 * her page a few others ---> her page and a few others


 * just because your interested ---> just because you are interested


 * your a horrible person ---> you are a horrible person

If you suppose that I am a non-native-English-speaking paid editor from China, I recommend you try some free online grammatical precision checking services like PaperRater.com before publishing, in order to establish even more formal linguistic accuracy of your all statements on Wikipedia than I do usually, so as to prevent every audience from confusions.

Supremarguax 16:00, 27 September 2020 (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.