Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang Mingzhi

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yang Mingzhi

This may be a bio for non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang but it is rambling and incoherent. -- RHaworth 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unsalvageable. Jkelly 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• This doesn't resemble an encyclopedia article in any way or form, and has no potential to ever become one simply because it's nonsense. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 01:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely useless. ♠DanMS 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencylopedic stream-of-consciousness rant --Anetode 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an essay, not an article.  freshgavin^TALK   05:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to the long ass sockpuppet rant that I didn't bother to read because Wikipedia is Not A Propaganda Machine. Anyone advocating for their article that poorly couldn't have made a decent wikified article. Karmafist 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic nonsense, incoherent, OR, POV essay, what else? MCB 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this kind of thing ruins Wikipedia, multiple rule violations, please delete --202.7.166.168 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no original research, unencyclopedic, sheesh ... Alex.tan 09:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinion. Guidance would have been a good medium. Next time.

• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Feel free to recreate with actual encyclopedic content. --Ashenai (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete incoherent rant about ... ??? Dottore So 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either patent nonsense or very, very close to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Current version is little more than patent nonsense with no context and a weblink to a website. I'd say speedy, but for due dilligence I combed the history and read the article that previously occupied this space. That article is apparently original research and thus deletable. (per "This story is easily verifiable - names, dates, places - everything. True credibility. I am the researcher.") Based on the earlier article (the version when the AfD was added) I still say delete... and in fact I'm reverting back to that article even though it appears the author is the one who changed it, just so voters are at least looking at a version with content.--Isotope23 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unintelligible. CLW 14:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rambling essay, not an article. Probably original research as well, but who can really be bothered trawling through that much dense, incomprehensible prose? Cut it short, and cut the comments short, if you want an article. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise for obscurantist sesquipedalianism. Average Earthman 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Del Dlyons493 Talk 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh! Delete. I don't know what it is, but it's not encyclopedic. --Optichan 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ??? --pgk^(talk) 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindless ranting, incoherent and inchoate, that can never make any kind of rational sense. Eddie.willers 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

REMOVE - Immediately - Copyright violations and infringement of protected works. "Unauthorized use" of my name in Public Forum. Thank you. R. Renda - Karmafist, see email to you.

• Keep. Just kidding. Delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon Comments
I've moved all of the random anon ranting down here since he can't vote anyway due to his newbie status and is disrupting the process with his longwinded jabbering. I've also blocked him until this AfD is over so his disruptive behavior here won't continue.Karmafist 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider about the block? I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it's quite normal to get upset about an AfD process. The cleanup is useful, and much appreciated, but I feel the block is a bit much. Nominating a person's article for deletion and then silencing him seems a bit unfriendly to me. He's done nothing wrong, after all. --Ashenai (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything truly disruptive like removing the AfD notice or changing anyone's votes. Blocking is rather extreme in this case. I have no objection to having the long essays moved to a seperate section, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Karmafist about the move. Good idea. Support Ashenai and Starblind about the block, though. AndyJones 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll unblock him now. All I want is this page to be free of nonsense, although to clarify, I didn't nominate this article for deletion, even though it's pretty obvious that it should be deleted. Hopefully by now he'll understand that his rants won't be tolerated on here. Karmafist 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remain appreciate the comment about an essay, not an article freshgavin. The input was worthy of something. Maybe can figure it out since am in the newspaper and mag biz and the difference can be important - notable. Then again to be here may not. We'll have an editor try turn it to an Article over the week and see what happens. To "conform." Maybe more a Media Alert than an essay, in short. maybe. But the stockpuppet comment really did prove a point about what this so called "discussion" was / is about. Maybe that fool instead of using the word "ass" in what is supposed to be (thought to be) a credibile arena should do as said in the first Remain response -- go either learn to read or sit back and just keep re-reading Jack and Jill. They would get off on Jack and Jill more. Well at least the Jack part. This is so good. And that person confirmed the credibility of the "remain" response. Those like KF who comment without knowing content. As their own admission of stupidty. Funny if all this becomes music to someone else's eyes somewhere else. Could be a good story here in itself. If it were A Propaganda who would waste their time here. That Karma ... "fist" (nice, wonder where it has been - the fist that is) should surely learn what The Word - karma means. And they just did. About a time and a place. It comes. Now KF can go sit on Swaggart's lap to get the good feel better - or maybe find a Catholic Priest, for little boys - to sit on. Incoherent, hummm MCB can it be the world in fogged glasses they live in is just ... more nonsense. May be. But who is to Judge, right ? Nonsense is not the article in question. But the fogged glassed would explain every thing. Article or essay may be just about POV. A truth in there somewhere. Oh right - I did not see anything in the rules that said when an author or researcher comments in response - they are called stockpuppets. No less other names. And what, the rules said ... don't take it personal ? All must be fooling / kidding one's self. A good example. Another "good read." Was an interesting exchange though. Entertaining. More like instead of a stockpuppet - it was the editor author taking responsibility. Instead of showing yourselves for what you really are you should just edit the page blank except for the 2 words - cover up, and save everyone else lot of trouble. And then like it was said ... those others can go back to reading Jack and Jill. Anyway, "freshgavin" thanks for the intelligent response. Appreciate it. it said ... not everyone learned that AIDS kills from just listening to what their mommy tells them while growing up as there mom was wiping their "ass" for them. Thanks. This was all very interesting. When I see this pedia come up on an engine we'll remember the world's blogs serve the international communities with more. Until we meet again. And of course, we will. Maybe some people should go back to gossip with their schoolmates - would serve themselves in a self serving manner better that way. At least after 20 or 30 years they may learn to read (or use what little between their ears life gave them). Has nothing to do with doing something good for any international community. Oh btw - we have been news people for over 25 years. And History has been written. Right here. Date noted. Well earned. At least gets the blood moving. The brain working. Researcher2 : )
• Remain - Opinion - carefully reviewing the rules of participation it states both author and others may comment on the discussion. Reasons for delete are noted to be discussed. If it were title of the article in discussion then it may hold merit to be changed. That is not what we see here above. I would note "non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang." Which I do not think the article is about simply just one person. There seems to be many. But the subject in first comment is "non notable". Yet I would ask is that coming - and please do not take this personal -- does that come from one who has done no research regarding facts as they too speak and make comment. The person Yang Mingzhi (asian culture reverses first and last name when addressed outside of America - if you did not know that too) Yang mingzhi does come out of a community as an on air person to a viewership of only 100 million people plus. But is it that since those people are of a different culture and then they need to be discounted into the bin of "non notable". of course, what is a mere 100 million people or a 1.3 billion people or someone involved with that - as a notable person ? Also all the people involved cited in the article, are well known press people in the circles of the elite from one side of the world to the other. If I worked on a farm what would I know ? And these non notables may not be known as you know them as your neighbor next door. Yet maybe they are the neighbor next door that you should know the names of and do not ? Do you know the name of every neighbor on your block or around you block ? One could be Barry Diller but would you know ? Or do you even know who he is ? Just surely another non notable (in real life - modern history and culture, TV culture that in). But no one watches TV right. People who earned a standing in "modern day" human affairs should not be discounted. Based on what was just said, someone might say this opinion is a rant. Especially seeing length. Oh why -- because it takes time to read ? Like a magazine. That is why a magazine comes out monthly -- because it heavy in content -- to be Digested. WHo created Rolling Stone Magazine's Fashion section and department or Spin Magazine's Fashion sectin ans department do you know that ? Another of no merit just a 400 billion dolar industry in America alone, that's all. Maybe I missed the definition of an encyclopedia in Webster's dictionary. Yet again it, the article in question and this opinion is set down with facts, places, dates, people by name, and merit. Is that a rant or just something that does not meet someone's approval or time schedule to ... really ... look into ? Another comment "unsalvagable." It is strange that facts and events of real Human history are unsalvagable, at anytime. Why is that so when what is written are again facts that have been and are happening - also note: with happenings that include over distances of time. As one issue -- of course, not the main issue, is Immigration Marriage fraud, punishable in America by 5 years in jail and/or $250,000 find (according to law set in stone by Congress, Senate, and the Legislature). But you all knew that. Where in this encyclopedia is there made mention that marriage fraud is how "5" of the Atta clan acommplished taking down the world trade center buildings ? Is it when you learn about one history does it not lend light to how it could effect many others ? The comment open to discussion call "nonsense". Since when are facts - real events reduced to someone's opinion of "nonsense" ? How did YOU yourself find out AIDS kills everyone. Did someone's mother tell them ? Just another passing thought. It was that 4 page CDC flyer that was sent into every mailbox in the country spring of 1986. And how do you think it got there, Reagen just gave it up willingly ? We have done a lot of research. What is in the article are "secrets", historical secret - that are only being allow to come to surface in: this millennium , not the last. And you do not live in the last millennium, or do you ? Again is it because it does not meet someone's approval of what knowledge the world should have -- or to take away something that has a possible point it should remain. I never have consided historical facts to be nonsense. Wouldn't you really like to know who killed JFK ? Or a article on that revelation with names and places would be nonsense too. Please do not take this personal or let the hairs stand up on the back of anyone's neck. And when listening to the audio cited in the article, the "wicked page", since when is what someone has said by their own verbal voice (especially a press rep of this proportion) become nonsense again verses a fact of happening and when credibilty in human beings are the overall question. Maybe there is something to be learned from the facts, dates, and places in the article. Maybe something to be learned by many around the world. Oh I guess this response of opinion would be considered still just a "rant" by the commenters because it is not in agreement with the community opinions and is responding. Or just that it is too long to read and take serious. We know many hard working people who like to read - even simply lay people. And take the time to do it. If the story -the article in question- had no merit someone would have just posted it and gone away. Not caring whether it remained or not. Or worse yet - just have it again posted by others - not spammed - but reposted and reposted again and again by people who look to see it remain. Of course this response may be too long for some to read. Again just bushed off as a rant. I wonder how many of the commenters actually went and researched the what was cited in the article before making comment. If they did then they would be able to tell us what the depth of obligations were or what the "I am a Fraud" statement on the Wicked page means in the value of America. Or how an issue can effect millions overall. Unless we have no value. Or socially connected human beings or human events have no value. Or the told sharing of mystery in life has no valuse. IF that is the case then it should be deleted. And to prove the point - others can paste and post the same article. As they would posted it from all over the country. I would not want to have to think this (what some consider honored) community is so narrow in mind that is discounts so many others in the world who see beyond the horizons of a backyard. And since it, the article, is about two known controversial figures - even if seen (by some) as (only) underground figures or under current figures - one would question how events that include Jimmy Swaggart and media giants like SMG can be seen as history non notable - or even underground for that matter. Like I said if the issue was title of article then maybe it should read "Matter of History" - "TheWordofGod.com" "The Travels of." To consider "The Word of God" itself in Book of Revelation and in other written works have been serious business to billions of people for thousands of years. Maybe thousands of years is as we can quickly bush it off as nonnotable too. There are a number of reasons to argue the article should remain -- intellectual reasons also -- but none of them are as short as the one line opinions as those stated (posted) by the "community" above. Not wanting to take up too much of your time because others may enjoy the read, a matter of History is an unencylopedic entry to any page of daily life. Or is it ? And I would argue the article remain. Even if refined. Or then just delete and others can just as easily enter it again and again until this community does see its true merit or does the research to see the merit in full. I worked on this project with others and do not hide behind the cloak of what may be seen as the cloak of others. Anytime anyone wants to question the facts or merit of the actual article -- unless they are merely protecting some political agenda as well as motive - then I can be reached. As others too will raise there voice if it need to be heard over time, which we all have years of. The Researcher 2. MsBarbaraQin@yahoo.com Well, anyway, thanks for listening even if you dismiss this response as a rant. As for a handy excuse. Could have just left it -this discussion - unresponsed to and simply as it was said - reposted the article upon delete. We could go back to first grade and just read "Jack and Jill." That would resolve everything. Or would it ? Researcher2

• remain - we could just call the article "Puzzle Pieces" and leave it alone.

Response - of course the author deleted it. One of the authors anyway. Well, not quite deleted - edited most of the body. Would not want anyone unhappy. Would have deleted all but the notice said do not leave "blank", quote: "please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." If it was unwanted there, why put it back ? Since according to the uhumm experts it is so "unsavagable." But I see you put it back. So thanks anyway. Funny. (if for nothing else it has made for brisk discussion. As it was said before. Seems to have gotten blood moving.) Maybe there is what LIFE intended ... and that is why it wound up there in the first place. Something in The Word - destiny. Ironic. Maybe those here who created the Universe can say otherwise. Of course. But you'd have to be able to read first.  : ) "funny." Strange funny. Not laughing funny. Anyway thanks for putting it back. Looks better there than not. I'll have to tell "him" what is happening later in the day. Sure it will be appreciated. Also funny said "unintelligible." People in the real world (outside of this one) call it "intense" amongst other heavier things. Should we show "input" email received from Canada or somewhere on the other side of the world. Not necessary. The China Press link shows something like that about half way down where the pictures start. We have plenty. Mostly bigtime positive. People don't like people who do bad or fake things to good people. Especially with legs not crossed (as Anne would say). Many have found it clearly intelligible. What do you think, this is the only place it appears ? It is not just on the web you know. Can't be that full of yourself now can you. "Intelligible." Not my opinion. Others have their own mind. We think it is even more. Nice discussion. Does look pretty good being back there in full body, doesn't it -- And it is only day 1 or 2 ? Very interesting. Researcher2

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.