Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While I'd like to make it a redirect to G-Unit to aid in move any small amount of sourced content over there, the vast majority of this article is not only unsourced original research by serious WP:BLP problems since they refer to all sorts of criminal accusations, death threats etc. When I went through the sources only a small fraction of them were actually reliable and even if all the sources were reliable the vast majority of the article is still unsourced or original research. I suggest that a few of the major feuds be mentioned in the main article. JoshuaZ 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit feuds[edit]

G-Unit feuds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Surely this is an un-encyclopedic article that has no place here?! Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Lugnuts 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No citations, very poorly written. I'd recommend cleanup, but it seems that the noteworthy portions of the article are already covered in the G-Unit article. Calgary 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 31 references in this article, which easily passes WP:V. However, clean-up I agree is needed, especially the Master P section.--JForget 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those references are from forums/rumor sites/youtube clips/lyrcs Corpx 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, If you read the article and references properly you will notice that they are from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article must be kept because the problems that are listed here have been identified recently and many editors including myself have been continually working to try and improve this article. A lot of work has gone into this article and it would be very unfair and a huge loss of information if it was to be deleted. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem is that feuds between rapper x and rapper a/b/c/d are not notable Corpx 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that people put effort into the article doesn't justify keeping it. Otto4711 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep G unit is involved in some of the most well known beefs out there, it would be dumb to delete, The-G-Unit-Boss has done a great job of cleaning it up, and me (if I decide not to leave Wikipedia, which I am contemplating leaving) and him can do a lot of cleanup to make it better--Yankees10 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
    • Comment - Threatening us that you will leave if the article won't be kept will not make a difference. --- Realest4Life 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- If you read his statement properly you will notice that he was not threatening to leave because of this articles nomination but because he was considering it anyway.--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Why else whould he mention it here? --- Realest4Life 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article should not be deleted as it has alot of gooodinfo about numerous G-Unit beefs and there has been alot of work been put into this article and this article is used as a main link on other g-unit artists as a main link.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article is low-priority, which means it is interesting for specific people, it should be kept because it gives some knowledge. Daniil Maslyuk 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Q T C 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G-G-G-G-G-G-G-UNOT ALLOWED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE (per nom) Will (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have 31 references. —Pengo 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those references are from forums/rumor sites/youtube clips/lyrcs Corpx 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, If you read the article and references properly you will notice that they are from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. References are fine, but I don't feel the content is encyclopaedic. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is well reference, it adds up to G-Unit article. However, I don't think it is necessary to have the full letter on the Master P section, this part should be cleaned a bit, keep only the essential of it.--JForget 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The prose of this article could sure use some improvement. Sure, there are YouTube links, but that does not mean that information hasn't been published by multiple, reputable sources. At the moment, a very weak keep would best describe my position. Spellcast 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've changed my mind to delete. Richfife made a good point that much of these feuds blur the line between fact and fiction, which an encyclopedia should never do. I don't even consider some of the entries in this article a genuine "feud". This information is more suited towards Wikinews and I doubt that ten, twenty years down the line, this will serve an encyclopedic purpose. If a dispute is worthy of inclusion, it should be merged to the G-Unit article or their respective artists. We do not need a "rogue gallery" of every single indiscriminate argument a band has. Spellcast 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the fact that there are zero reliable sources on this article, most of these feuds are trivial, and the few that aren't are better documented (and sourced) on the articles about the artists themselves. A lot of WP:BLP concerns as well. Resolute 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are many references from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace and Youtube don't count. Try again. Lugnuts 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and many of the references are from other sites, only a small portion of them are from youtube. The-G-Unit-Boss 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--G-Unit are probably the most most well known rap group in the industry for their feuds. This page has all the information, sure it need cleaning up but not deleting. 84.71.186.170 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this page does need to be cleaned thats why the tags are on it. But it has too much information just to be deleted.
--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having "too much information" on it doesn't justify an encyclopedia entry though. A fansite, yes, but not here. Lugnuts 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The important information is already housed in the main G Unit article. The rest is poorly sourced (yes, I've seen the list of references, and they're not reliable, except the ones that reference the information already housed in the main article) and excessive coverage. GassyGuy 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Some of the informationis house din the G-Unit article--But not all of it. If this page was to be deleted all of the information in it would be transferred into the G-Unit article by me or oother users anyway. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. --- Realest4Life 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I crossed out "The-G-Unit-Boss'" above vote, as he has voted twice. --- Realest4Life 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I un-crossded it because this is not a vote- it is a disscussion, I was just putting forward another reason to keep --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, saying "Keep" twice will confuse everyone, so say "Comment". I changed it for you. --- Realest4Life 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --- Realest4Life 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Another reason to keep is because there have been no prior warning that this articles sources need to be checked or changed and so the regular editors have not noticed. There have, however been notices to notify us of a need to be cleaned up and for the grammar to be fixed and this is being worked on. If we were given another chance, we could get this article fixed and up to Wikipedias standards. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't even think that's a good reason to keep, but even if it was, there were three templates at the top that said the article is unreferenced, it needs to be wikified, and it has problems with "copy editing". --- Realest4Life 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-Hi, I know but it said 'unreferenced' and so I was adding new references. It didnt say anything to do with 'bad references' and also I have addressed the other notices. We were fixing them. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Just don't say you did not have a warning, also, as I said, that is probably not a good reason to keep, and although the references are OK I guess, the article itself simply should not be in an encyclopedia. --- Realest4Life 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of which have NO references or reliable sources. In comparison this article is far better written and documented. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Indeed they should not be here either, AfD them if you wish. --- Realest4Life 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Why dont all of the people who so badly want to remove this one have a look at those which are far worse and should be deleted first. This article still has some hope of being improved whereas the articles listed above are a wreck. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - After we are done with this article, the others can be deleted as well. --- Realest4Life 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-Yes, but what I am saying is that this artical can be improved if the editors are given another chance. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't understand what you are talking about. Are you saying, that you can make this article that is un-encyclopedic be encyclopedic? By that I mean that you and some other editors can make these feuds be appropriate for an encyclopledia. How are you going to do that? I mean, even if you had many references, and everything else was fine, I still don't believe this would be enyclopedic. --- Realest4Life 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-If it is re-worded correctly then, yes, it can be encyclopedic. I am working, still, even though the article has been nominated for deletion, on its wording, grammar, references etc etc. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now I am really confused, you don't make something encyclopedic by just improving grammar and everything, the thing is, articles on feuds like this simply do not belong in an encyclopedia, an above user mentioned the "Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell controversy" not belonging here, which is obviously much more notable than G-Unit's feuds. I think I already explained this to you, but you just keep going and going. Also, this discussion is turning into a discussion between you and I, maybe we should wait before we add anything else until someone else comes here and gives their opinion. --- Realest4Life 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI really dont know why people want to delete this article, really what is the point, it is about a notable rap group and there feuds, which they are known for expressing more than most rappers do, so with outta doubt it should be a keeper--Yankees10 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
  • Comment-But what we are trying to say is that this is and can be encyclopedic and it is a very informative article. The references have no problems although some would like to think that they do, and yes it does need cleaning up but how can that be done if it is deleted?--The-G-Unit-Boss 11:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Is anyone else going to vote any time soon? --- Realest4Life 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I mean, right now we are just going in circles and we aren't getting anywhere. --- Realest4Life 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-This is not a vote-it is a disscussion--The-G-Unit-Boss 15:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • COMMENT - All right, well is anyone else GOING TO DISCUSS SOME MORE to give another opinion? --- Realest4Life 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, please stop correcting me on whether or not I say "vote" or "discuss" as I could easily correct your horrid grammar, but I choose not to. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP-this article should be lept because loadsa different articles link to it as a main article so you gotta keep it 84.71.186.170 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment-Thats true, Many different articles in the G-Unit family link to this article as a main feud article. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment - For the last time, The-G-Unit-Boss, do not vote twice, it is not allowed, and you are certaintly not allowed to edit others' comments. --- Realest4Life 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Once again, G-Unit Boss, remember to say "Comment", not "Keep". --- Realest4Life 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- What difference does it make because I want to keep as well as comment--The-G-Unit-Boss 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I already explained that to you, I am not going to say it again, as I would only be wasting my time. --- Realest4Life 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The-G-Unit-Boss seems completely unbiased and neutral on the topic! Lugnuts 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - I never said he isn't unbiased or not neutral, I just told him to make sure he doesn't use "Keep" twice as it is confusing, that is all. --- Realest4Life 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - I never said he isn't unbiased or not neutral I never said you did!Lugnuts 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One !vote per discussion, please. Also, links can easily be removed, so this is hardly a reason to keep this article. Resolute 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - The article does have 31 references, but it is not enough, there are just as many sections I believe or more. I am going to improve grammar and spelling as much as I can, and the people that want to keep this article, I suggest you try to get more sources. Much more, because the Big Pun feud, the Jay-Z feud, the Diddy feud, the Styles P feud, and more, have no sources. I will do everything I can and starting within the next 10 minutes, I will keep trying to improve everything I can. G-Unit-Boss, and everyone else, please help. --- Realest4Life 18:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Yes, I have been improving this article very frequently and I think that it is close to a good standard now. Keep up the good work. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, it is not, look at how many unsourced statements there are, and you barely started to improve the article a few hours ago. There is still a lot of work to be done. I also changed your vote from keep to comment. See above, it is not just me who says you should not use keep twice. --- Realest4Life 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though this puts black people in a bad light, we should be honest about our history.--Perceive 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-Well actually if you look at the it history I hav ebeen improving this article for a lot longer than you have. You have only started in the last few days. --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Too bad your improvements weren't good enough and so led to the AfD. Besides, it's not how many edits you have, it's the quality of the edits. I have about 70 edits, and it would all be pointless if I didn't help, instead creating edit wars and such. Also, whether or not you worked hard or more than me is irrelevant, as if you don't find sources, the article will be deleted. --- Realest4Life 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rap feuds are no more notable and unstaged than professional wrestling feuds. Making a list of them is not encyclopedic and blurs the line between fact and fiction, which an encyclopedia should never do. - Richfife 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Question, the decision on whether or not the article is kept or deleted is on which side makes the stronger argument, am I right? --- 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, its based on whether the article in question violates WP Policy and Guidelines Corpx 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above with the pro wrestling feuds, just because two people diss each other doesnt mean that the "feud" is notable. Perfect example is the Rosie/Donald feud I cited above, which was deleted. Feuds mainly exist for promotional purposes so that people will talk about it. Corpx 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then this should have already been deleted as these "feuds" are rather trivial and unencylopedic. The articles that The-G-Unit-Boss mentioned above should probably deleted as well, as they are all articles on these types of "feuds". --- Realest4Life 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article more likely to be kept or deleted? --- Realest4Life 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well hopefully if we find an admin with some balls and a spine, it'll be deleted. It's now riddled with more unsourced statements than ever, non of which are notable or encylopedic. Lugnuts 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be pure OR with Cite tags at the end of every other sentence and this is despite both it's main editors having about a hundred edits each on this article alone. And the group of articles mentioned in the middle of this AfD need to go as well. This article clearly violates policy, I have no idea why this AfD is this long. Darrenhusted 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G-Unit_feuds&oldid=1068874487"