Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shady/Aftermath vs. Murder Inc. feud


 * 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 as mandated by WP:BLP. Controversial content about living persons with only one source; that will not do. I'll userfy it on request if someone wants to improve it. Sandstein (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Shady/Aftermath vs. Murder Inc. feud
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article with lots of WP:BLP and WP:OR issues. The info can be appropriately mentioned in the artist articles. See also the precedence at Hip hop rivalry, G-Unit feuds, and Celebrity feud. Spellcast (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is without question one of the more well known feuds in hip-hop history. The relevant analogy is not the articles mentioned by nom, but rather Jay-Z vs. Nas feud which easily survived its own AfD. Hip-hop articles are often a huge mess, and any sections or full articles on feuds are particularly problematic for obvious reasons, but that has nothing to do with deletion. Lack of sources in the article, original research, and BLP concerns are not reasons to delete. The topic is unquestionably notable - it has been covered in literally hundreds of articles (for example, a google search on "50 Cent" "Ja Rule" and "beef" - the last being the common word for a hip-hop dispute - gives over 260,000 hits). The feud even received significant coverage in Ethan Brown's very well received, and well researched, book Queens Reigns Supreme. This article needs a ton of work in terms of sourcing, cleanup, possible BLP issues, etc., but it is not even close to falling outside of our notability guidelines which is all that matters here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To say that OR and BLP concerns isn't a reason to delete is incorrect. Consider WP:CSD, which says pages should be removed if it's "entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to... If the page is an article about a living person[s] it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards". Even if sourced, the info is already mentioned (or can be mentioned) in the relevant biographies such as Eminem, 50 Cent, Ja Rule, and D12, thus making the page redundant. This is a WP:BLP and WP:OR disaster that it's better to start from scratch. Spellcast (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this qualified under CSD G10 you would have put it up for speedy deletion. It doesn't so you didn't. G10 refers to "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity [emphasis added]...These are sometimes called "attack pages"." This article is not even close to being an attack page - it contains unsourced assertions about living people but that does not remotely make it a a G10 speedy candidate. So, yes, it is true that OR and BLP issues are not valid reasons for deletion. Articles with OR and BLP concerns get cleaned up, not deleted, with some very rare exceptions for non-notable BLP's. Also it makes no sense to discuss this feud in the hip-hop artists' articles. In order to tell a coherent story we need one centralized article. This was an extremely notable event - you have not disputed that I notice, and notability is the issue at hand - and warrants a Wikipedia article. What I would recommend, and what I might do, is to strip this down to a basic stub if necessary, or at least remove any BLP or OR issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If kept, reducing it to a stub seems appropriate considering there's no non-BLP violating version in the history (but I wouldn't be surprised if unsourced statements settle back in overtime). Spellcast (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I have to say is, this feud is important in hip hop, and although I couldn't find any references, i think someone else can. And, if there's article on Jay-Z vs. Nas and 50 Cent vs. The Game, this article shuld exist too. ZAPMUT (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep
 * See WP:OSE and WP:SEWAGE. If other articles have serious BLP and OR issues, feel free to nominate them too. Spellcast (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, cool, and what do you want to say, that we neep to delete this article? We need to repair it, not to delete it. This feud is important in hip hop, so many artists were included in it. You want to delete it only because it has no references. So let's find the references. :o- ZAPMUT (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding negative unsourced info and thinking someone could fix it isn't how things are meant to work. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP are non-negotiable and the article fails each of them. The info can be covered in the above biographies anyway. Spellcast (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay calm down man. I thought it's against Wikipedia's policy to delete notable articles, is it? ZAPMUT (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never not calm. I'm just emphasising an important point. Notable articles should be kept, but if it's a BLP disaster, it's better to start from scratch. Spellcast (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, to start the article agian? ZAPMUT (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, WP:BLP is very important. Spellcast (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So much as I can understand from all this, we would re-write the article. I have no problem with that as long as article stays on Wikipedia, but ofcourse, cleaned up. ZAPMUT (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep basically, what the other people are saying is my opinion too. LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to Userspace until verifiable and reliable sources can be added. Right now I agree with the nominator that it suffers from WP:OR and WP:BLP issues and it has virtually no sourcing, how do we even know it's right?  If someone's willing to take it on and get it up to Wikipedia standards, then I suggest moving the article to that person's userspace while the get proper sourcing.  Renee (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (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.