Talk:Azealia Banks

Duplicate content due to merge

I understand that Social media use by Azealia Banks was merged into this article. However, this has resulted in a lot of duplicate content, particularly on her political views, and something needs to be done about it because the article simply cannot work with this amount of repetition. I didn't follow the discussion that led to the decision to merge, so I will only ping FaviFake, as they are the one who performed the merge and may know who else to contact about this issue. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 01:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. You can read the entire discussion that led to the merge in the first banner at the top this article's talk page.

The section Azealia Banks § Political views is relatively short, so I think the best course of action is to merge Azealia Banks § Political views into Azealia Banks § Political opinions. Is there any other duplicate content?

You can add {{Cleanup merge|Social media use by Azealia Banks}} if you don't feel like fixing the issue yourself.

Courtesy ping @Bizarre Bizarre FaviFake (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Splitting discussion

I'm proposing re-splitting Azealia Banks#Disputes and controversies into its own article Disputes involving Azealia Banks. As it stands, this section constitutes over 40% of the article, likely violating WP:DUE, much of this content has went unedited after the consensus to merge Social media use by Azealia Banks back into the article, but I'll still argue the topic is notable enough to merit its own page while not detracting from the article solely about Banks herself. 1dagsvlieg (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose – The obvious solution to fix the duplicated content in the article is to remove the duplicated content in the article, not to split the page back.

Courtesy pings: OwenX, AirshipJungleman29, Jolielover, JMWt, ModernDayTrilobite, Launchballer, Svartner, Doomsdayer520, Bearian, Smallmandarin as partecipants in the AfD which closed as merge:  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media use by Azealia Banks FaviFake (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I think an entirely different article on disputes relating to her offers undue weight towards that aspect of her. I think the current section in the article should be trimmed down. I would agree if her profession was related to the disputes/controversies - say, a political commentator - but she's a musician with controversial takes. I really don't think another article is necessary. See, the interesting thing is that there does appear to be a lot of coverage on her opinions, but let's be serious for a second. Is a singer's opinion on various countries seriously relevant?? If a politician, yes, maybe. If a singer, no. For example, she has a dispute with the country of Sweden as she [deems] Swedish people as racist. This has no relevancy to anything she has ever done. It's a bit ridiculous to list the countries she likes and dislikes, unless very much relevant to contributing to that artist's notability; see Kneecap (band) and how their support of Palestine has lended them notability. jolielover♥talk 17:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah it's gotten kind of funny at this point, there's a paragraph for everyone she's ever commented on. The last thing we need is to make an article about it. FaviFake (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose yes, the section is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The solution is not creating a separate article that is entirely a violation of NPOV (???) but instead removing the bloat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose copy-edit down the bloated controversy section. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - the OP is an editor. So use your mental faculties to edit. Not everything a celebrity does or says needs to be written here, it's an encyclopedia not a detailed biography. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was merely an "undecided" commenter back in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media use by Azealia Banks but the proposal to reverse that debate's (loose) consensus just two months later is ill-advised. The solution to the WP:UNDUE problem is to reduce the size of that section in the current article. It's true that Azealia's multitudes of social media controversies get reliable news coverage and that initially justifies added such material to an encyclopedic article. But it is not necessary or even readable to churn out of a list that drones on and on about every single one of her beefs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Controversies and politics of Azealia Banks

Due to the excessive detail template, I suggest an entire relocation of the "Disputes and controversies" section to its own page, which could possibly include her political views as they have been seen as controversial and is explicitly what the template references; potentially Controversies and politics of Azealia Banks? Thewealthysocialite (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there any example of such articles that are for non-politicians? I would be for the trimming of that whole section but all of the topics seem notable, I wouldn't know what to remove. Julvsel (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried. I think I did a decent job. If there's anything to fix please go ahead.Cheromaniii (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Cheromaniii, I have reverted the split based on the obvious consensus at the above talk page section, which was archived for some reason. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I see, is there anything I can do to get the separate article back up? Like another splitting discussion? Cheromaniii (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Well no, seeing as there's strong consensus in the above discussion that it would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)