Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Rhodes Lynx football team

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser - T 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rhodes Lynx football team[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a season article about a low-level, Division III college football team. The top 32 teams in Division III were invited to participate in the 2013 Division III playoffs; Rhodes was not ranked among the top 32 teams and did not participate in the playoffs, making this a run-of-the mill Division III season. The only source in the article is a url link to the school's own schedule table which is neither SIGCOV, nor is it an independent source. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I realize that there is game coverage (e.g., here, here, and here) in The Commercial Appeal (the hometown newspaper for Rhodes), but we need to put things in perspective. Do we really think that a team that didn't even get ranked in the top 32 of Division III warrants stand-alone season articles? And WP:GNG asks for SIGCOV in multiple source. I have not found SIGCOV from any paper other than The Commercial Appeal. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, and American football. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw for now. The coverage is more extensive than I thought. Needs more WP:BEFORE. Cbl62 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2022 (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.