Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicki Minaj–Cardi B feud

Nicki Minaj–Cardi B feud

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8 and WP:DEL-REASON#9.

This is not an encyclopedic topic, it is largely gossip-driven trivia, and grossly fails the policy of WP:Biographies of living persons. It violates several other WP policies and guidelines as well, including WP:NOT (WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH.

Much of the content and celebrity media reporting used as sources is based on gossip, speculation, social media-derived sensationalism about high profile celebrities who individually draw a lot of run of the mill speculatory coverage from entertainment media on virtually anything, including social media posts and exchanges with other celebrities. This article is at the core of WP:SENSATIONAL: "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." Specific significant events that are pertinent to an artist's career or life are mentioned in their respective articles. There is also no musical back and forth between these artists to warrant an article like Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud, which is about a notable rap feud (musical disses). Lapadite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this page, I'll just express my two cents without leaving any sort of vote since a "keep" would be redundant.

Yes, celebrity coverage can be excessive, meaning that customarily trivial things tend to get covered when they normally wouldn't. However, in this case, I would highly implore you to actually look at the breadth of the sources and the depth of the coverage therein:

There have been timelines of the feud as a whole published by BuzzFeed News, Slate, NME, Billboard, The Cut, Vulture, People, Uproxx, and W, all ranging from different points in 2018 to now, and two primers on everyone involved in the feud from Spin and Billboard.
Most of the reliable sources cited in the article (and some that were not) have offered continuous coverage of the feud and each of its specific developments since its beginning, both music-focused—Pitchfork (1, 2, and 3); NME (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9); Billboard (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10); Rolling Stone (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); The Hollywood Reporter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5—and non-musical—BBC News (1, 2, 3, 4); The New York Times (1, 2); Associated Press (1, 2, 3); ABC News (1, 2, 3, 4); The Los Angeles Times (1, 2, 3); The Guardian (1, 2, 3.) Even The Hill has an article that references the feud here.
Multiple sources have called it some variation of "the biggest feud" in hip-hop, regardless of the lack of diss tracks: The Root called it "rap's biggest feud" just this year; E! News called it "music's biggest feud"; TMZ called it "hip-hop's biggest feud"; Good Housekeeping included it on their list of the 20 most famous celebrity feuds of all time in 2020; the Evening Standard wrote that it was the "feud of the year" in 2018.

Also, it would be good if you could cite examples of the gossip-driven trivia you reference or the numerous policies that you say this article violates, because, as yet, you are just just pointing at policies without linking any of them to anything actually in the article. The article does begin with mentions of rumors, but it is largely about how both rappers directly responded to them, much like in the page for the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. The lack of diss tracks also does not make it less worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia than the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud—there is no guideline stating that feuds with articles must also include artistic works or diss tracks. This feud has more than been confirmed at this point based on the above coverage, which is far more extensive and continuous than frivolous "silly season" reporting. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lucrative celebrity news cycle driven by gossip/speculation is very prevalent and countless reliable sources participate in it; as such many articles can be linked to "support" the notion of a longstanding fued between many celebrities. The existence of sources, or mere verifiability, does not dictate the inclusion of content and is not the mere standard for the creation of an encyclopedic topic. The quality of the information matters. You can link to countless articles off a Google search, but can you cite sufficient factual, substantive, relevant information in reliable sources that buttresses the encyclopedic need for a standalone topic on a celebrity dispute, as opposed to noting a relevant individual incident in their respective articles? The "depth of coverage" you allude to is largely selective speculation. WP:SENSATIONAL should not be inherent to the content of the sources supplying your topic: "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking".

To my knowledge, there is only one factual event pertaining to these two individuals, and that is in 2018 when Cardi B threw a shoe in Minaj's direction at a fashion event reportedly due to the assumption of a social media "like"; this is mentioned in their respective articles. Neither that one-time factual incident nor the 2017 reported misunderstanding about their collab "Motorsport" (trivia that is relevant to the song's article, which cites that both artists denied the rumors of a fued between them) warrants an encyclopedic topic about a supposed fued spanning 7+ years. There is nothing factual since 2018 pertaining to a "feud" between the two. Individually throughout their careers, both of them are constantly a source of entertainment media gossip and speculation, as are many other high profile celebrities in and outside of their musical genre. The existence of this article topic inherently blows out of proportion a few unrelated, disparate interactions or comments from these two artists based on, chiefly, gossip churned by celebrity news media.

- The lead alone is telling, such as "rumors of a feud between her and Minaj began circulating ... alleged to be disses toward one another, which they both denied". Most of the content is derived from rumor/gossip/speculation from social media via entertainment media, and much of the article has to use terms like "alleged", "implies", "rumored", which speaks to the un-encyclopedic nature of this topic and how it lacks sufficient substantive, quality information to support encyclopedic inclusion.

WP is not a newspaper or a tabloid. We don't run with any and all celebrity news and gossip the media churns out 24/7 and create topics on it because there's a lot of sources. Editorial judgement is intrinsic to this, driven by WP's policies and guidelines. For the reasons outlined, this topic fails the aforementioned, and the quality of content, relevant and factual information, isn't there to justify it. Lapadite (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already shown that there is more than enough relevant and factual information, not just pertaining to but entirely about this feud and addressing it as such—even just the titles of the references explicitly call it a feud between them, not an "alleged" feud or a "rumored" feud ("Nicki Minaj and Cardi B's feud is spilling over into Cuomo and Nixon's gubernatorial fight" from WaPo, "Cardi B and Nicki Minaj feud escalates with series of lengthy, angry rants" from NME, "50 Cent Weighs In On Cardi B And Nicki Minaj Feud With Concern" from Vibe, among many, many others.)

This assertion that there were no factual event[s] between them is strange—was their back-and-forth on Twitter earlier this year (which was widely covered from start to finish, including by USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Complex, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc.) not a "factual event"? Was Minaj selling merch directly referencing the feud not a "factual event"? Was Minaj's interview prior to their fight about feeling a lack of "genuine love" from Cardi B, which was cited by many sources as a precursor to the escalation of their feud, not a "factual event"? Was it not "factual" that Cardi posted a series of videos addressed directly to Minaj after their altercation, which received direct responses from both the girl group Little Mix and former Wilhelmina Models CEO Bill Wackermann? You can make the argument that what's in the lead is centered more around rumors than the "confirmed" events of their feud, but that is a surmountable problem solved through editing and discussion, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And saying that much of the article ... uses terms like "alleged", "implies", "rumored" to suggest the whole thing is speculative and based on gossip is not only false for the reasons listed above, but also contradictory to your own assertion that the article for the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud—which, as it stands, uses the words "allegedly", "allegations", and "alleged" a total of 12 times, and the words "rumor", "rumors", and "rumored" 6 times—warrant[s] an article. Lines like "Multiple outlets interpreted the first verse on 'The Language', the album's fifth single, as a response to Lamar's 'Control' verse, with Drake insinuating that Lamar's music was 'not that inspiring' despite popular and critical acclaim," and "Hip-hop fans and outlets alike speculated Drake's verse on the remix was a diss targeted towards Lamar," are exclusively about interpretations of the feud rather than factual event[s] but are still important to understanding the history of the feud. Not every notable aspect of a feud involves a thrown heel. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a lot more to the Drake-Kendrick Lamar conflict than alleged music disses before it took over the industry. It is a factual and longstanding hip hop clash in which they addressed each other by name in music and it enveloped popular culture (outside of just hip hop) including the Super Bowl, other celebrities involved, countless celebrities addressing it, award shows hosts commenting on it, television programs referencing Not Like Us, countless analyses on its effect on both artists' careers, "Not Like Us" winning a Grammy, and a major lawsuit that involved the industry. Trying to equate the culturally and industry consequential Drake-Lamar hip hop feud with a personal incident 8 years ago and a twitter spat between Minaj and Cardi B is false equivalence.

You're showcasing some of the issues. "Minaj selling merch" nowhere does Minaj mention Cardi B there, and the article links to several memes about that "bag" joke she posted. Much of the rest of the content is in this vein - again, gossip and speculation attributing specific things to posts that don't state such. You keep linking a bunch of articles to again reinforce quantity, but reading the articles gives the real picture of the nature of the content; for instance, you said "which received direct response from the girl group Little Mix", which implies that they were involved in the fued, but in actuality Little Mix simply responded to Cardi B claiming something about them, they did not comment on a Minaj and Cardi B argument. The content of much of the sources is misrepresented. Again, the substance, relevance and veracity of the content is essential. Media reports and makes narratives on anything. Here's a recent example of Billboard reporting on a trivial exchange between Minaj and singer James Blunt: [1]. Is this of significance or relevant to anything? No. But that is the nature of entertainment media and celebrity. There expectedly being many Google search results on high profile celebrities with speculation about them and their posts in relation to other celebrities doesn't itself determine or necessitate an encyclopedia topic.

There are no factual events between them since the 2018 incident you're referring to. And then recently - 7 years later - there was a twitter argument after Minaj tweeted some joke about sales; a since-ended twitter spat that's irrelevant to the 2018 incident. Are we creating encyclopedic articles for any of the many other twitter arguments with/about other celebrities or on other topics that either of them have engaged in over the years? Do we create encyclopedic articles whenever celebrities post jokes/memes or make vague posts or get angry at someone and the click-seeking media reports and speculates on it? There is no verifiable real-life consequence or cultural impact to the 2018 shoe throwing or unrelated twitter spat 7 years later to warrant an encyclopedia topic. Relevant trivia is included in their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does Minaj mention Cardi B there—the title of the article is literally "Nicki Minaj Mocks Cardi B With New 'Nicki Stopped My Bag' Merch". Not sure how much clearer it could be. And [Little Mix] did not comment on a Minaj and Cardi B argument—again, the title of the linked article is "Little Mix dragged into Cardi B v Nicki Minaj feud" and the quote from them is "Sorry Cardi hun but this is the T. We've always wanted the Queen [Minaj]."

I am done adding to this thread after this because it is starting to overtake the actual discussion beneath it. It seems useless to keep retreading the same points over and over again. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're again illustrating an example of an article and title not being substantiated by the content itself and being driven by gossip and speculation. "Much of the rest of the content is in this vein - again, gossip and speculation attributing specific things to posts that don't state such. You keep linking a bunch of articles to again reinforce quantity, but reading the articles gives the real picture of the nature of the content" Lapadite (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Gossip and nonsense. Mag2k (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination fails to provide any valid deletion rationale. The first two reasons provided (notability and BLP policies) fail on multiple grounds. The feud has been covered extensively in reliable sources (e.g. WP:LATIMES [2], WP:NYTIMES [3], The Cut [4], etc). That these eminently reliable sources chose to run media coverage of this ongoing feud is extremely good evidence the topic is notable. Appealing to WP:BLP similarly doesn't work; no aspect of the BLP policy is violated by this article that wouldn't be fixed by editing. That some of the content may violate guidelines is not a rationale for deletion, as WP:Deletion is not cleanup.

The nominator claims that there is no musical back and forth between the artists, but this is not how reliable sources report the music. Similar to how the disses in the Kendrick-Drake feud usually don't directly implicate each other, songs like Ganja Burn, Backin' It Up have been reported as containing disses.

There is academic coverage of this topic as well, in the books The Sociology of Cardi B: A Trap Feminist Approach [5] and Moving Blackness: Black Circulation, Racism, and Relations of Homespace [6] that would permit further expansion that involves critical introspection of the coverage on the topic. It is certainly more than any run-of-the-mill rap feud, of which there are a multitude. Katzrockso (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benmite and Katzrockso, who show compellingly that this subject is treated as a distinct and notable topic by a variety of trusted news sources, i.e., that the article topic is notable and does not depend on SYNTH. I don't find the BLP concerns particularly convincing either—while the feuding parties certainly said a lot of insulting things about each other, the article seems to cover them in a dispassionate and attributed fashion, which to the best of my understanding should sufficiently address those concerns. To the extent that any BLP issues do exist, editing is a better way to resolve them than outright deletion of the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Benmite and Katzrockso. The feud has been significantly covered in a multitude of reliable sources (not just trashy gossip rags that we wouldn't rely on for BLPs). Nil🥝 04:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While initially I was going to go with the argument WP:NOTNEWS but if there are academic articles on this topic and has been extensively covered by news publications which it has it should stay. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, sources are simply linked but the content in them informs and determines substance and relevance. Two books were linked above, the titles of which are The Sociology of Cardi B (published in 2024) and Moving Blackness: Black Circulation, Racism, and Relations of Homespace (published in January 2025); no demonstration of these books having anything to do with this topic of a Nicki Minaj and Cardi B fued/twitter argument. As asked of entertainment media articles, is there substantial, non-gossip information in them that pertains to this topic? An issue is that the mere existence of sources that reference these two celebs is used as justification for this as an encyclopedic topic. The content of the sources, its relevance and legitimacy, needs to be taken into account as per WP's policies and guidelines to determine whether there's enough legitimate, non-speculatory info to warrant this topic; otherwise, a specific incident can be and is noted in the artists' respective articles. An example given above of that often not being the case, is an article titled "Nicki Minaj Mocks Cardi B With New 'Nicki Stopped My Bag' Merch" while the content in the article doesn't have Minaj even mentioning Cardi B and implies a "bag" tweet from the artist was part of a meme on Twitter. Lapadite (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]