Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murders of gangsta rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G.


 * 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 as copyvio and redundant. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The murders of gangsta rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G.
wikipedia is not a place for your essay -- Koffieyahoo 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the creator of the article gave away the truth right at the top of the article: It's a copyvio from Crime Library (which is, by the way, a good, interesting site that I wish had an article :P) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. SM247 My Talk  09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too old to be a speedy candidate. The old fashioned way of dealing with copyvios will have to suffice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I thought I was the only one who knew that there is a 48 hour limit. ;-) Now if only we can teach people what a commercial content provider is (someone who makes money directly from the content that has been copied, such a newspaper or encyclopedia that charges a subscription or sells ad space. advertising and business documents do not count unless people are paying to see it or ad space is sold. yes, it is that limited, and yes, it is nearly useless). -- Kjkolb 11:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, their murders/deaths should be (and no doubt are) covered in the articles about the individual artists. I don't like the limits on copyvio removals. It's clearly a copyright violation and there's no chance at all the submitter wrote it themselves. I think content from entities like Crime Library should be deleted even if they're not commercial. Isn't the limit there to give people the chance to claim ownership. Shouldn't be needed here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 28 June 2006 (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.