Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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]

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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
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-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 - 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]

*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-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 - 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 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"