Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of South Carolina steroid scandal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep per Snow (No reason has been given for the afd-nomination and nobody except the nominator has supporter it. A well-documented article on a notable event) - Non-Admin Closure . JdeJ (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Carolina steroid scandal

[edit]
University of South Carolina steroid scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is an unfinished nom created by an anonymous user. Frankly, I'm not sure if the reasons he gives are valid (see the talk page of the article in question), but I thought I'd at least let this process go through. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete This nomination is based entirely on an assumption of bad faith (see Talk) by the nominator (not JuJube, but 65.188.38.31). I was worried about the article tone, which seemed inflammatory (considering how commonplace steroid abuse cases are these days), but apparently (per the cited sources) this case was a big deal that led to federal legislation being passed. Notable and reasonably well-sourced, might need a retitle at some point since this 15-year old event could be confused with other such news (if such occurs). / edg ☺ ☭ 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominated for deletion because CobraGeek is an avowed Clemson fan and hater of all things USC-related. Simple proof can be found on his userpage which clearly exposes his agenda on Wiki, one more suited for a sports message board than an online encyclopedia. This article was obviously written simply as backlash for a fact pointed out about Clemson in another article (Carolina-Clemson Rivalry). This user has used up any "good faith" they might have enjoyed due to their constant trolling of USC articles and POV edits. Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. I thought attack pieces were generally frowned upon in Wiki, well-sourced or not.
    A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll register and get to work on that article alongside another about the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. Or we can just stop all this silliness right now, delete this obvious attack piece and move onward and upward. Someone just let me know which direction we are going to move this thing...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Created by 65.188.38.31, the user who wrote the unsigned comment above, as a part of an editing war. The user's actions over this page include personal attacks, blanking the talk page and removing reports on himself so I beg to be forgiven for not assuimg good faith. The article is well sourced and I don't see the case for deletion. Whether a certain user (CobraGreek) is a Clemson fan or not is completely irrelevant. I suggest the template be removed swiftly as there is no case here. JdeJ (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article being discussed for deletion was created as part of an "editing war." Go back and look at CobraGeek's contrib history and it's pretty plain to see. At the top of the page of "What Wikipedia is Not" is the following: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Essentially, that is my argument. Investigate the REASON this article was written in the first place, not simply that it is well-sourced and "notable". Is there a personal agenda at work here? That's all I'm asking. Also see: Wikipedia is not a battleground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "reason the article was written" is not a factor here. That it is well-sourced and notable is sufficient. You have given no reasons for deleting this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree 100% with edg. Whoever CobraGeek is, the article seems noteworthy and is well-sourced and no good reason has been given for why it should be deleted. JdeJ (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can see where this is headed. Attack articles written because someone is upset at content they can't get removed from other articles is 100% acceptable at Wiki. Even when they are written so quickly that they have much of their content lifted almost verbatim from their referenced sources (check the linked NYT articles and compare them to the text here). Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go register and get to work on the 1985 Clemson steroid scandal article and 1982 Clemson recruiting scandal article which will be factual, notable and well-documented. So I'm sure I won't have to worry about anyone deleting them for any reason. Oh, and I'll also mimic CobraGeek and place links to these 2 articles in EVERY OTHER Wiki article dealing with Clemson University, athletic-related or not. But you guys are right...there's no bad faith that can possibly be inferred from him taking those actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're on Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons. If those articles are noteworthy, then fine. But this is a worlwide encyclopedia, not a battlegound for fans of University of Carolina and Clemson. JdeJ (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe I made that exact argument above with regard to CobraGeek who you seem to believe is above reproach. Why does that hold true for me and not him? Double standard, much? Like I've asked repeatedly, check this user's contrib history. Look when this article was created by him, and after which edits he tried to make stick but couldn't. Look what he did after writing this article. He posted links to it on pretty much every USC-related Wiki page he could find. Is this article relevant to the general page about the University of South Carolina? Come on, are you really asking me to believe that you can't see what he's up to? Seriously?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We look forward to your contributions. Be sure to give Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability a read. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd support a Speedy/Snow keep, as a bad faith nomination. I suppose we also have to check the Clemson articles in case there are problems there. DGG (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, you're right. The nomination was bad faith, but this article was totally in good faith. No personal motives at all behind why this angry Clemson fan wrote it up (plagarized mostly) and linked it on every USC wiki page. He is all about spreading truth and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So this AFD is withdrawn? Or was that WP:SARCASM? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest interpreting him literally and removing the AFD. Nobody has provided any reason why the article should be deleted. JdeJ (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it wasn't literal. But I like how you neatly dodged my "double standard" question above.
            • There is no double standard. The article is not judged by who creates it or what their supposed motivation might be. If you have a problem with another user, you might consider taking it to dispute resolution. AFD is not the forum for grievances of that sort./ edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, there is a double standard, and I wasn't really looking to you to answer for the person who is using it. Basically, JdeJ has approached the entire issue thusly: CobraGeek=good faith, me=bad faith; CobraGeek=using Wiki to spread useful info, me=using WIki as a battleground; CobraGeek=creating article out of search for "truth," me=calling for deletion of article as part of "edit war." It's amazing how some people have these powers of judgement and can see things so clearly. At any rate, you've both made your views abundantly clear, why not sit back and wait for a few other folks to have a chance to do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree that the nomination is not in bad faith, but it is based on a bad-faith assumption. I see no evidence 65.188.38.31 is deliberately breaking any rules, only that WP:AGF dismisses this nomination as irrelevant. I don't think anyone is saying CobraGeek=good faith because in this case it doesn't matter. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And per WP:SNOW, there is no reason to wait for other editors to consider this AFD, because no reason has been given for deleting this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG in supporting a Speedy/Snow keep. I find it unlikely that anything more (anything productive) will come out of this discussion. JdeJ (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, because a whopping FOUR people have voted here. Why don't we wait until we get just a tiny bit larger sampling of people to read the discussion and weigh in. You've already made your viewpoint about this issue and what you think of me more than clear. Pardon me if I might want a few other people without your bias to have a chance to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you care to explain what my "bias" here is? And as not one single reason has been put forward to motivate why this article should be deleted, I think a fast decision could be taken. JdeJ (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll restate it for you: CobraGeek=good faith, me=bad faith; CobraGeek=using Wiki to spread useful info, me=using WIki as a battleground; CobraGeek=creating article out of search for "truth," me=calling for deletion of article as part of "edit war." That pretty much sums up your views as expressed in this discussion. Not exactly the most neutral I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may have escaped you, but I haven't said anything about CobraGeek, good nor bad. I haven't checked any of his contributions and I don't intent to do it as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. JdeJ (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What didn't escape me is that while you didn't check any of his contribs (not a surprise) you apparently checked all of mine, and then immediately brought them into the discussion, when they weren't any more relevant than his, according to your criteria. Again...bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically the anon vote doesn't really count. But then technically This isn't a vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea that editors without accounts cannot contribute to AFD is believed by a small number of editors, but those editors are wrong. Contributions from editors without accounts that are firmly based upon our policies and guidelines are, indeed, more welcome than contributions from editors with accounts that have no bases whatsoever in our policies and guidelines. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support WP:SNOW keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and advice: Anonymous, the problem you're facing here is that you're actually asking AfD to decide two things. Firstly, that User:CobraGeek is acting poorly with regards to this topic. Secondly that, following from that, this article is dubious. However, Articles for Deletion is only qualified to discuss the article. If you still feel there is a problem here and want to resolve it, the most correct course of action would be to deal with the issue would be to read through the dispute resolution advice, as I think someone already mentioned. If you still believe there is a problem with the article after you've reached a resolution there, then likely that will give you a more solid foundation for a second AfD nomination (that is, one which doesn't require AfD to make value judgements about users, which as I've said it's not really supposed to do). Hope that helps! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked up User:CobraGeek, I will agree that he's made some edits in the past that I don't agree with and that I don't think there needs to be a link to this page from the University of South Carolina. Having said that, I don't find his contributions particularly controversial and he appears to be more responsible and balanced in his edits than 65.188.38.31, who will probably say that this is just because of the yet unexplained "bias" I have. My only "bias" in this is that I dislike disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, and I consider 65.188.38.31 to be engaged in exactly that type of behaviour. The whole afd-nomination of this article is an example of such disruptive behaviour. JdeJ (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal&oldid=1069898567"