Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University Football
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was redirect to Clemson University without prejudice against this article getting cleaned up at this location eventually. W.marsh 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clemson University Football
Prodded, deprodded, improperly reprodded. Moving here as contested. User:JPD says "Nothing but a report from the NCAA, which isn't an approrpriate article whether it's copyrighted or not" No vote NickelShoe 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean notable, but the article should be more about the history of Clemson football, not just a press release. Eivindspeak! 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. A good article could be written about this. However, we have at the moment a media release. It would be better to redirect to Clemson University until such time as someone writes an article or even a stub. Would vote to keep even a decent stub.Capitalistroadster 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The reason the article was "improperly" reprodded, rather than brought here, was because the notice was removed because the reasoning wasn't understood. I think it's fairly clear that the article as it is should be deleted, but if/when it is replaced by something decent (even a stub), there's no point even thinnking of deleting, which actually makes PROD a good place for it. The only question is: Is there anyone who will put something decent there? JPD (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this version, which is probably a copyvio, without prejudice to a proper article being created. Stifle 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Well, it's not a copyvio, at least it says it's not; however, it's still just a blatant copy-and-paste job from what looks like a press release. Needs a complete rewrite in order to be kept. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (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.
