Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal


 * 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 no consensus. not an attack article, not an hoax, discuss a merge in talk Secret account 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Clemson University football recruiting scandal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history. Thör hammer 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Comment: False (fabricated?) information  This article is almost 1600 words, 1300 of which are essentially "fluff" or minutiae slightly doctored up from an NCAA infractions report (is anyone ever actually going to read those 1300 words? - please use WP:COMMON SENSE - if not, try to read it!). Factual, yes, but fluff nonetheless (see WP:NOT - Statistics and News Reports). Of the remaining 300 or so words, the most important statement is "Clemson is the first and only football program to be placed on probation the year after winning a national title." The only problem with this statement is: It's totally false (which pretty much makes adding a tag ineffective). Even a cursory amount of research by the author would have revealed this. Perform a LexisNexis search or even cross reference the College Football Data Warehouse with the NCAA Legislative Database and in a few minutes you can easily find at least nine other instances in which an NCAA Division I Football team was reprimanded by the NCAA or placed on probation for violations preceding the team winning a National Championship (see list of instances below - Probations After an NCAA Division I Football National Championship). At least two of these factually refute the statement made by the author (Auburn in 1957, Texas in 1963). The difference in the remainder of the instances are largely investigation timing issues on the part of the NCAA Infractions Committee. So not only is the statement factually false (not merely inaccurate, but patently false) based on the two specific accounts, but the remaining accounts also make the statement semantically irrelevant. And this is the single most important statement the author attempts to make in the entire article. This statement was either made up by the author or quoted from an unreliable source (which the author failed to cite). I am guessing that this was an attempt to create the illusion of notability(?), besmirch the reputation of Clemson University, or both.


 * The reputation of Clemson University was besmirched quite adequately by the 70 documented violations of numerous NCAA regulations, the inaccurate statement (removed by myself) really doesn't add to this fact. ViperNerd (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The 1300 words on individual infractions were deleted by User:B due to copyright issues. That pretty much leaves this article as a stub, and when you consider the false material just discussed there isn't really anything left.-- Thör hammer 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Notability?: The next issue with this article (and potentially others like it) is its lack of notability. A quick search of the NCAA Legislative Database (referenced by the author in the article) reveals 236 "major infraction cases" in Division I football since the NCAA started keeping records on infractions in 1953. If a search is done on all Division I sports you will find 501 major infraction cases (596 major infraction cases in all NCAA sports divisions - an average of over 11 per year since 1953). In my recollection, only one has ever garnered sufficient pubic attention to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, and that one was the recruiting situation with Southern Methodist University in 1987 where the NCAA invoked the 'death penalty'. Anecdotally I think the public tends to remember the teams that win National Championships and pretty much lets the recruiting problems slide (kind of how we are with our presidents and interns - that would be WP:SARCASM ;) - cigar anyone?). Of the 596 cases mentioned, what exactly is the author saying that makes this one special (besides the false statement above)?  I don't see it in the article.  NCAA investigations and probations are very common things (kind of like speeding tickets for colleges) which would tend to make the subject non-notable.  The University of South Carolina (apparently the school favored by the author) is currently serving a three year NCAA probation for violations in its own football program.  Why not an article about that one, too?  Apparently, the author feels that the probation of the rival school for only two years was more significant, which tends to make this article heavily POV (could this one be considered a candidate for speedy deletion under  ? - this article appears to have been written only to disparage its subject). One interesting (rhetorical and common sense) question on notability here is: If you asked the fans of the teams winning National Championships whether they would trade in their National Championship trophy to erase the NCAA probation from their record, would they say YES?  I would guess NOT.

If you approach the notability issue from the pure general notability guideline point of view, in my opinion the article fails to measure up for three reasons: More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist.
 * The topic has not received "significant coverage" in secondary sources (certainly none are listed by the author).
 * The number of "sources" covering the topic are limited (this is demonstrated by the lack of references listed by the author - one is the NCAA infraction report, the other is the NCAA press release detailing the infraction report).
 * There are no sources "independent of the subject" used as references in the article (note that I didn't claim that there were none available).

Because of these notability shortcomings, I have also tagged the article with the template. There is little evidence that further work on this article will increase its notability, and certainly no indication that future coverage will do the same.

Comment: Bad Article Idea?: The next problem with this article stems from the numbers I mentioned above regarding NCAA infraction cases. Besides the lack of merit from the article truth, quality, and notability points of view, I think this article is a horrible idea from the NCAA Football Project point of view (can you imagine potentially having a new article each time a different NCAA infraction case comes up?) From WP:List of bad article ideas, there are several other points that might be instructive here. They are:
 * Another article on an existing topic - there is already adequate material to cover the topic in Carolina-Clemson Rivalry and 1981 Clemson Tigers football team. I think it was actually added by the author of this article.
 * Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about - who is really going to read those 1300 words of individual infractions? Seriously? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Any article written while in a highly emotional state or reflecting personal opinions (Wikipedia is not a blog) - See the material from an earlier deletion discussion, as the author is 65.188.38.31. Also consider the false statement made by the author above.
 * A new article to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough - again, there is already adequate material to cover the topic in Carolina-Clemson Rivalry and 1981 Clemson Tigers football team.

It would probably be a VERY, VERY good idea for some of the WikiProject College Football team members to chime in on this discussion (I will put an invitation on the project talk page). If this is the type of article that is going to be permitted, we are opening a Pandora's box of bad possibilities. This does not help the WikiPedia project at all.

NOTE: The edit history below for this editor and suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets is provided for use by the closing admin per WP:AFD guidelines, and we don't need to waste a lot of debate over the edit history when considering the deletion request.

Comment: Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?: One of the last points that needs to be considered here is the contribution history of the author (while assuming good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary). Normally, only the merits of the article are relevant in deletion discussions, but WP:AFD specifically states that "it is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." Reviewing the author's edit history it is clear that the author (who IS using a new user account) was previously represented by several IP addresses (either directly or as sockpuppet/meatpuppet) prior to registering for the User:ViperNerd account around 01/12/2008 and publishing this article. Some of those IP's are: 65.188.38.31, 65.188.37.65, 62.232.41.140, 66.56.149.230 201.155.32.234, 69.60.114.58, 89.96.176.162, and possibly 161.156.99.11. Combinations of these IPs have been blocked at least 6 times in a little over a month for edit warring, personal attacks, user space vandalism, disruptive edits, incivility, harassment, and general trolling. The most recent block expired on 01/14/2008 (you might notice that the author registered the new account and published the article before the expiration of his most recent IP block). When reviewing the contrib history, pay particular attention to 65.188.38.31 contribs in this deletion discussion. It is apparent from this discussion that this user did not create this article out of genuine desire to help the Wikipedia project. Perhaps he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Based on the use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets and the disruptive edit history, I would also suggest that this article be protected against re-creation. Again, I am reviewing the edit history of the author because WP:AFD states that it is acceptable to do so for the sake of the closing admin. It would be a good thing if this user could be brought to direct his time and energy to more productive tasks on Wikipedia, but he just isn't getting the point.

Given that any user can change their stripes, we have to make allowances that perhaps these IPs have registered to change their ways. The most recent edits of new User:ViperNerd don't reflect that this is the case. Three recent contribs included the following: One interesting (and humorous) point about the last edit comment is that it was directed at User:ClueBot (which was rolling back changes the author made to a semi-protected page with a new account). Pretty disruptive to harass the digital help, but I'm sure the Wiki-server won't complain about being called a "Tater". ("Tater" is a local term used disparagingly by some University of South Carolina fans against what they think are Clemson Tiger supporters).
 * Vandalize Wiki like you did in the University of South Carolina article and your IP will be blocked. Grow up.
 * You do realize that it takes about one second to undo any childish vandalism you take your time to write? Get a life.
 * You got busted, Tater. Next time you vandalize you'll get blocked. Have a nice day.

Finally: WP:Harrassment: The final point that I will make here (whether it is taken in the context of the deletion debate or not regarding WP:AFD allowance for noting the contribution history of new users) is the harrassment issued from this user against other members of the Wikipedia community (and one in particular - and he doesn't deserve it). I haven't been contributing on Wikipedia all that long, but I can tell that there are some incredible people doing awesome things here, and they don't deserve it either. This author is a cyber bully who uses every opportunity to harass and Wikistalks those who make edits he disapproves of (including BOTs and Admins). He epitomizes the tendentious editor. If you are skeptical, please read these recent edits by the author:

That pretty much makes the point clear, but there is alot more if you look. And this just keeps going on and on and on. The author pretty well confesses his intentions to generate this attack article at least four times in this recent edit history. I'm pretty sure there are few members of the Wiki community who would assume good faith on the part of this editor after viewing this contrib history. Is he disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Think about the time and energy wasted by reasonable, good faith editors and Admins having to deal with this constantly. It is possible for this editor to pull back from the brink, but he needs to realize the need first. -- Thör hammer 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Comment - Can I get the abridged version? --B (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Comment - Sure. Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise.  Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.-- Thör  hammer 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus there is the issue of the 1300 copyrighted words on individual infractions from the NCAA report. Probably the worst article that I have seen on Wikipedia.  Good catch on the copyright.-- Thör  hammer 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of this reads as a complaint - legitimate or otherwise against user: ViperNerd and if his editing style and other infractions are the main subject of your concern then your report belongs elsewhere. If the concern you are raising is that he is using sock-puppets in relation to this article then that is not immediately obvious.  If he is using a sock or meat puppet elsewhere then that does not assist this AfD nomination.  So in the interests of helping AfD editors and admins with this request can I ask that you look again at the article alone (forgetting your concern about the author) now that B has removed the copyvio material and in just a few words tell us in your opinion what exact parts of Clemson University football recruiting scandal are fabricated?  The other points of inadequate sourcing (meaning there is some sourcing) and generation by a newly registered account do not justify deletion.  I will look back in and decide to nominate keep or delete once I see that material.-- VS  talk 09:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fabrication discussion in first paragraph at the top, above the first table. Thör  hammer 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay thanks for your response which strongly suggests to me that this article should be kept on the basis that whilst there have been difficulties with it it does at this time remain a valid document that could easily be moulded into good shape; and could be expanded by interested editors.-- VS talk 10:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks VS, for recognizing that we've got a person here who CLEARLY has a vendetta against an editor and not a reasonable, well-thought basis for deleting an article. The LONG diatribe against me composed above pretty much bears that out, I think. And we pretty much covered much of this ground in the AfD discussion of the USC steroid article. I was told OVER AND OVER, that reasons for writing an article are not important in the least when determining its inclusion in Wiki. This article is notable based on the sheer number of violations involved and well-sourced with only the NCAA infractions report (not copyrighted material) as a reference, though I'd be happy to add some newspaper refs if the consensus is that it would somehow help. Thanks.ViperNerd (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources demonstrating notability would help. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations.
 * Bear with me on this one. Normally, I'm one of the loudest proponents of inclusionist thought when it comes to college football articles on Wikipedia. Until now, I didn't think there was a college football article that I wouldn't support when it came to a deletion debate. Until now.
 * On the surface, this would be a great subject for an article. You could construct it from contemporary news sources, histories of Clemson football (there are several), University and NCAA press releases on the subject, and generally cover the issue and put it into context. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been done. Again, normally that's not enough for me to write off an article. Things can be expanded, re-written, and generally improved. That's the importance of Wikipedia over a general encyclopedia.
 * For this article, however, there seems to be a great deal of "baggage" attached. We could get dragged into a long, drawn-out debate over whether it's worthy of inclusion, then about what should be included, discussions of sockpuppetry, attack articles, and the like, or we could just jump right into a compromise solution: Delete the article; there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and a rewrite would pretty much need to delete and start from the ground floor, anyway. To combat issues of notability, move the subject into a section of a general article about NCAA recruiting violations in football or some such thing. This way, an article could gradually be constructed from the ground up and eventually spun off into a separate article if and when it's good enough. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please read the 3 or 4 disclaimers about the user edit history (above). This is included per WP:AFD policy for the benefit of the closing admin only.  There is no need to debate that portion of the nomination here, only the merits (or lack thereof) of the article.  Thör  hammer 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User edit history wasn't an issue in the AfD of the USC steroid scandal article (as much "attack" as this one), so I fail to see how it is an issue here. Just because you clearly don't approve of me isn't a legitimate reason to get an article I wrote deleted.ViperNerd (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Can this AFD be rewritten (perhaps closed here and re-opened in a new version) to include only information about the article? is a new editor and is having problems figuring out how to contribute. In this edit I instructed him to add this article if the subject is "notable and documented". If those things are true, this cannot be an attack article. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Edgarde, you must truly be a saint to phrase that the way you did. Can I quote you on it later?  Thör  hammer 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, on the nom, I certainly wouldn't have a problem moving the user history to another location, it does seem to be getting into the conversation a little much, considering the number of disclaimers included above. As far as the article is concerned, it does not meet the notability guidelines for a standalone article and isn't well documented.  The lack of documentation is a fixable thing, but the notability thing isn't - it isn't going to be more notable tomorrow than it is today, JMO.  Thör  hammer 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines require me to be nicer than I actually am. Collect some diffs for the user conduct issue, and file it away for future reference. However, Vipernerd could become a good editor in the future&mdash;the contributions made in this article seem worth keeping, only not in this form&mdash;and WP:BITEing him at this time would thwart the more desirable outcome. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Notability in secondary sources is not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1981 Clemson Tigers football team already makes a brief mention of this. I have no strong preference for merge targets. New York Times has a few articles that may be helpful in sourcing. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the nomination and the defense make it difficult to see what the problem is. Do I read this right?  Delete the article because of an inaccuracy (it inaccurately stated that Clemson was the first football program to be sanctioned after winning a national championship)?  That's it?  That type of mistake can be fixed with something called "edit this page".  No need to break out tables for big presentation.  You don't need our permission to correct an inaccurate statement.  Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clemson Tigers football in a NPOV and supported and referenced fashion, as is typically done with this info on other WP:CFB articles. See Oklahoma Sooners football (a GA-class article) and search for "violations". MECU ≈ talk 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Good grief, that was a long, painful nom!! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a little long, but there were so many problems with this article...where to start, where to stop? Wiki is a lot faster than writing code for me (PB & VB), so it came together pretty quick.  Thanks for taking the time to read through it though.  -- Thör  hammer 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Attack page, no matter how you slice it or how long your nomination is. Also in before tl;dr. ViperSnake151 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's no more an attack article than the one written by CobraGeek about the USC steroid scandal which was defended zealously despite his long history of anti-USC contribs/edits on Wiki. As I read over and over in the AfD discussion for that dubious article, it makes no difference WHY a person writes an article for Wiki, or WHO writes it, only that it be notable and well-sourced. This article is both. Public reports like the NCAA one excerpted in the article are NOT copyrighted, and are in fact written specifically for public consumption and distribution.ViperNerd (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Someone made this point: "More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist." ALL OF THIS CAN ALSO BE STATED WITH REGARD TO THE USC STEROID SCANDAL. No one talks about it outside of the state of SC, and it is generally only brought up by Clemson fans in response to the mention of their years of cheating which landed them on probation. By the way, their probation is notable from the rest by the fact that it consisted of one of the largest lists of violations in NCAA history. So in the end I've got no problem with both of these article being deleted from Wiki, or both of them staying, it's the unbalance of having one without the other that is bothersome. Don't enforce a double standard. ViperNerd (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We are not about likes or dislikes and friends and foes. I may not like how this article is being built but that does not give me the right to delete it! I actually have nothing to do with this article but just averting edit wars when they happen, but please enough is enough. we wasting time discussing this, go back to editing. Igor Berger (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into relevant season article I realize that's a rather specific vote, here's my logic (speaking generally): If there is some baseline notability (I don't think NCAA sanctions automatically are, usually the media will tip us off to what are "major/notable" infractions), then this might warrant mention somewhere. I don't think this should be merged into any general "Clemson Tigers football" article, because its about a very specific period (although a small statement in the relevant area of a larger history section would be acceptable).  Beyond one sentence, it would make sense as a sub-section of a season article (possibly a sub-section under "legacy" or similar such post-season section).  If it can be expanded (legitimately) to a good size, then it might warrant its own article linked back from the relevant season page. For now, I am against merging it into a general Clemson football article, but in support of merging it into a relevant season article.  I am neutral on deleting it altogether. --Bobak (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated above, 1981 Clemson Tigers football team appears to be the season for which this team was placed on probation. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is not completely accurate. The violations occurred over a period from 1977-1981, the probation was enforced through various means on the program during the 1982-1984 seasons. So it would be difficult to merge this article into just one season article. Also there is the issue of the probation which was placed on the program in 1990, I was planning to add a section to this article dealing with that. ViperNerd (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge into relevant Clemson football-related articles as mentioned by other voters above. ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - article was made in response to University of South Carolina steroid scandal, which certain editors objected to. Additionally, USC Trojans football makes no mention of the Reggie Bush scandal, and in the Reggie Bush article, there are only three sentences making any note of the recruiting scandal in which he was involved. Additionally, it seems that most of the effort is put forth in discrediting the 1981 National Title held by Clemson. It seems peculiar that the only years mentioned are 1977-1984, which would discredit the players that played in the national championship game (four years before the title, four years after).  Zchris87v  19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why an article was made is not grounds for deletion. Also, last I checked, Southern California has not been placed on probation by the NCAA for their recruiting of Reggie Bush, so I fail to see what that has to do with this. Additionally, most of the effort was placed into detailing the numerous violations that Clemson was found to have committed during a period from 1977-1982, people can draw their own inferences about the fact that the 1981 championship season was near the end of that period of cheating. But I'm glad a Clemson fan could join this discussion just to give us their predictable "delete" vote. ViperNerd (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX applies here, i.e. perhaps that information needs to be expanded in Reggie Bush. Also, since the Bush news is only 2 weeks old, the effect on USC Trojans football (if there will be any) may have not yet been felt, let alone made notable. None of that makes a case for deleting the Clemson University football recruiting scandal article. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although there are many bytes in this kitchen sink nomination, a large percentage are dedicated to a misplaced behavior report and refutation of a single errant statement in the article that does not represent a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the nominator misunderstands/mistates not temporary and claims via bullet point the topic has not received "significant coverage" in secondary sources and then immediately backtracks acknowledging that reliable sources certainly exist. AU Tiger » talk 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Personally I don't think these types of infractions generally deserve their own articles except in rare cases such as the SMU death penalty case (which actually doesn't have an article) and should normally be handled in a section in University Mascots football but the subject does meet notability guidelines and reliable sources can be found so it certainly may stand as an individual article.
 * Comment: I am disappointed and, quite frankly, annoyed by the backstory of this article, its antecedent, and the editors of both articles that have chosen to make Wikipedia a battleground for their rivalry. As much as I want to AGF, I see no clean hands here. AU Tiger » talk 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Okay, let's wrap this up. Discussion seems to have tapered off, and the overall consensus seems to be keep/merge. Seeing how there is no single season article about Clemson football that this article can be tied into easily due to the two probations and years of violations, it would seem best to allow this article to stand on its own merits for now and allow editors to improve it, as they have been doing. I think a decision needs to be made and the AfD template removed. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Let's keep the debate open a while longer, please. Question: If the article is closed out to a merge where should it end up?  Hopefully some continued debate can come up with a logical way to do that in a fashion that sets a good precedent for this potentially significant NCAA football issue going forward.  So far the following possibilities have been mentioned above:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!Potential solutions if AfD outcome is MERGE I disagree with the arguments above that reject any attachment of this information to an article specific to the Clemson team, and that favor moving this information to new fork articles that no one will see. If Clemson Tigers football is not the right article, is there another article specific to this team that would be more appropriate? I agree that Clemson Tigers football is currently tabular data without an encyclopedic narrative, but this would suggest the appropriate course would be to add more information, not keep information out. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations. - This solution certainly sounds good initially, but I wonder what the article ends up looking like when the number of cases mentioned above is taken into account(?). Could get nasty, could potentially be a very long page.  There is currently already an article on the NCAA that includes rules violations and the Division I FBS institutions currently on probation (and the link is to the school article which I don't believe is the best target - I'll fix these).  It is a good, brief, interesting article written in NPOV fashion, and it just calls it "Rules violations" instead of "recruiting scandal" or the like (so it would naturally encompass whatever the nature of the violations were).  That part certainly won't satisfy anyone who is foaming at the mouth to make it an attacking style of article, so it sounds like a natural fit to add another section under Division I FBS institutions on probation and call it something like Past Division I probations.  That could link to a general NCAA probation article that would consolidate all of the notable NCAA cases in one place (football, basketball, or whatever - a very tidy solution).  One interesting thing about the NCAA article is that it does have a link to the NCAA death penalty, and there is a good section there on the Southern Methodist University case, as well as the original Kentucky Basketball death penalty from the 1950's.  This is definitely an easily transitioned solution for a merge of this article that fits the way the articles are currently layed out on Wikipedia (probably the best that you are going to get).  With this as a proposed solution, I like this potential solution so much that I would change to a Keep/Merge request if we go that route.  THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESOLUTION TO THIS AfD.   Thör  hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clemson Tigers football. - Currently, the Clemson Tigers football article isn't much more than a shell, and merging this article with that one essentially turns it into this article under a different name. Not a good solution.   Thör  hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into relevant season article. - Good bit of discussion above about this. I agree with those above who say it doesn't make sense because some of the probations apply to violations carrying over several seasons.  Also not a good solution.  Thör  hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * One last note on the article name: "Scandal" is a bad word for most any of the of NCAA infraction cases because the majority of them seem to happen in a vacuum, without covert and organized institutional involvement (and it suggests a POV flavor). Hope that makes it about clear as mud.  Thör  hammer 02:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that scandal is the wrong word for this, since there is little evidence of any kind of public outcry; "violations" is an alternative that might be better. The name is only an issue if it is kept, and I don't favor keeping the article.
 * }
 * One last note on the article name: "Scandal" is a bad word for most any of the of NCAA infraction cases because the majority of them seem to happen in a vacuum, without covert and organized institutional involvement (and it suggests a POV flavor). Hope that makes it about clear as mud.  Thör  hammer 02:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that scandal is the wrong word for this, since there is little evidence of any kind of public outcry; "violations" is an alternative that might be better. The name is only an issue if it is kept, and I don't favor keeping the article.


 * Comment - Most of the sources cited in the article are press clippings, if the author could cite from a published book (which would provide perspective on the seriousness of the allegations) then I would say keep/merge. Gamecock (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this article is sourced to Associated Press stories published in The New York Times, plus the NCAA's own press release on the matter. Not exactly a scrapbook from the Sunday Shopper. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - We are being way too easy on this article and its "creator" (read "copier" or "sockpuppeteer"). Per the nom, this definitely is an attack page, no matter how you slice it and no matter how emphatically the sockpuppeteer (ViperNerd) who created it argues his point to stop debate as quickly as possible (so he can get back to his business of disrupting Wikipedia).  This editor and his socks should be immediately put on the shortest possible leash and banned at the FIRST sign that they are back to their crap (I'll submit the sockpuppet report ASAP).  He is being snide with other contributors (read "Clemson fan") in the discussion above already.  Is there truly anybody who thinks this editor is going to change his ways?  This guy just doesn't get it.  In the last three days, he has engaged in an edit war, violated 3RR (should have been blocked AGAIN for that), had the page protected, used a sockpuppet IP account to be uncivil (see the last edit history quote above), and who knows what else (does he think we're all blind?).  Contrary to the nom, this should have been submitted as a Speedy Delete and deleted quickly per the WP policy.  The quality of the original article was poor, read like a pasted NCAA report in its entirety, had ZERO secondary or tertiary sources (hastily thrown together).  It was awful.  It has been doctored up (a waste of time since it should already have been deleted) but still needs significant work.  Get rid of this article and its troubled creator. CobraGeek (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument for deletion because of problems with "the original article" that have since been fixed does not make sense, and new articles by new editors almost always need significant work, cf. WP:PROBLEM. I should also remind editors that AFD is not the place for attacks on the article's creator, who is new and editing better now than 2 weeks ago. Even if it were the place for such attacks (and it's not), it's been done already at quite some length. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Edgarde, I didn't make the argument for speedy deletion based on quality problems with the original article, those were just some after thoughts. It wouldn't have mattered how good or bad the article is per WP:Attack page policy, even immaculate articles that are attack pages should be deleted because their only intent is to disparage their subject.  As far as the puppeteer "editing better", this is just like a convict working out in prison - he is only improving his "craft".  Take a look at what he just did with NCAA after Thör mentioned it in his Merge recommendation.  He "ethnically cleansed" the entire section because it listed a reference to the University of South Carolina being on probation.  What do you think he is going to do when we are not watching?  Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out with regards to this miscreant.  And please don't suggest that we are biting the newcomer, this guy ain't no newbie.  I respect you for the effort you put in here, but you are wasting your time with this editor. CobraGeek (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, everyone "gets it." Attack articles are only acceptable when YOU write them, or agree with their content. Is that about the size of it? Anyone who likes can check the records to see exactly when you decided to write your article about the USC steroid "scandal" but I'll save people the time and effort. It was shortly after an edit was made to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article that dared to mention that Clemson was placed on probation the year following their national championship season. You even made your displeasure known in the talk section of that article. But that wasn't enough for you. Despite having no mention of it on the "to-do list" of your user page to that point, you hastily made an article about the only negative subject in USC football history you could think of to equal Clemson's probation, steroids at USC, posted it to Wiki and then placed referring links to it in every USC article you could find. So your crying foul in this case is utterly absurd and utterly hypocritical given your past actions. Interested parties can also check out the history of your user page which I notice you have sanitized DRAMATICALLY to avoid giving the impression that you are a Clemson fanatic who hates USC and actually a good-faith editor who is on Wiki to simply write about "the truth" of college football. I'll ask a question again that you quickly deleted from your talk page. Why would you write an article about Clemson's 1981 season and then state your intent to write about the 1985-1990 teams? Why skip the 1982-1984 seasons? Is there something notable that took place during that time period that you'd rather not have to address? Also what's the status with that 2007 Wofford article? Seems to be taking a long time to put together for something that took place only last fall. Or is that just more window dressing? As far as my edit of the NCAA article, the source for that entire list in the article was outdated. There were several schools listed that are not on probation currently, but I understand this happens on Wiki, things get written and sourced, and then forgotten about, and can grow "stale." A good example of this is the coaching list in the South Carolina Gamecocks article, I must have had to add at least 4 head coaches that weren't listed in the table. Check the CURRENT NCAA probation list here: https://web1.ncaa.org/pdf/convert?pdfurl=http://goomer.ncaa.org:2020/wdbctx/LSDBi/lsdbi.lsdbi_mi_rpts.currentprobationrpt you will note that it is dated Jan. 23, 2008, I don't think it gets much more current than that. Finally, at least my article's primary source isn't a first-person, heresay account dictated by a disgruntled athlete (of questionable mental capacity due to drug abuse) who was upset about his University not paying for his self-inflicted medical costs when he chose to abuse steroids. Just because you believe it to be the Gospel of Tommy Chaikin, doesn't make it so. ViperNerd (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This AFD is very hard to read because of off-topic discussion. Concerns about editor conduct should be taken to dispute resolution. Urgent concerns go to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, who in this case would probably recommend dispute dispute resolution. Comments about medical emergencies involving my brain should go to my talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Arbitrary Break

 * Comment - Once again, I'd like to see an admin wrap this case up. The only noms for delete are by the nominator and two avowed fans of the university that is the subject of the article; hardly unbiased observers in this case. In fact, one doesn't seem to understand that the AfD is about the ARTICLE, not its creator. Additionally, I'd guess that those two editors wouldn't even be satisfied with a merge of this article into an existing Clemson football article because they would claim POV or something. If someone wants to tackle the merge (which I feel would be a difficult prospect) that would be acceptable, but I think it more prudent to let this article stand and continue to be improved. Any "discussion" in this case has clearly ground to a halt and has degenerated into personal attacks, I move for a Speedy Keep so that we might all get on with the business of improving Wiki. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clearly, this has degraded into meaningless infighting and I don't know that we are going to get any further worthwhile debate. I propose closing this debate now, and my recommendation is as I discussed above to Merge into a general article about NCAA probations/rules violations.  This is a compromise from the Speedy Delete I proposed in the nom, but again I think it is a good solution on this one.  Any objections to closing debate and calling in the closing admin for his decision? VN, I already know that you want to close.  Thör  hammer 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no such article, and most of the merge votes above favor merging to Clemson Tigers football. As I stated previously, I disagree with creating a fork article instead of attaching this information to an article about the Clemson team. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - in a nutshell in terms of keep, merge delete - I agree with edg's well worded point to merge (which of course is another form of Keep!)-- VS talk 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Thor, I am sorry but IMO this AfD was bound to degrade into meaningless infighting from the get go because it started as a very wordy lament against another editor rather than remaining focused on what was wrong with the article as it stood at the time of the nomination!! It has now reached the ranks of being in the group of most tiring to read AfD's at Wikipedia.  As I stated earlier there are several places for you to bring various concerns about another editor (and I make no opinion as to whether you are right or wrong), however putting up such a version as this; then canvassing an invitation to the debate to 18 other editors (including a later call to CobraGeek who also makes unhelpful edits against your disfavoured editor); and then continuing such wordy integration into the debate including more tables and suggestions and returns and other tediousness - has not been a proper use of the process nor the place for such edits.  Please now leave this damn debate alone (if you or VN must comment further go to the talk page that is attached) and let an admin (I would have done it if I hadn't already commented) trawl through this mess and attempt closure.-- VS  talk 22:36, 23 January 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.