Deletion of Clemson University football recruiting scandal

Comment: 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. 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 #TEMP|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Can this AFD be rewritten (perhaps closed here and re-opened in a new version) to include only information about the article? {{user|Vipernerd}} is a new editor and is having problems figuring out how to contribute. In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal&diff=182703385&oldid=182702719 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Sure.  Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of , but can also go to  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:AFD)

Comment: Please read the 3 or 4 disclaimers about the user edit history (above).  This is included per  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: to Clemson Tigers football. |Notability in secondary sources is not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: We are being way too easy on this article and its "creator" (read "copier" or "sockpuppeteer").  Per the nom, this definitely is an ttack page|attack page, no matter how you slice it and no matter how emphatically the sockpuppeteer (Special:Contributions/ViperNerd|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 ivility|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 '''SD|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:C||WP:CSD)