Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team

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 redirect to List of Hampden–Sydney Tigers football seasons. ♠PMC(talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team[edit]

2015 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division III football season where the team was not ranked in the Top 25 in that division and closed with a mediocre 6–4. While considerable effort has been put into the article, the sourcing is not independent and does contribute toward the GNG analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the growing popularity of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, one concern I have with redirecting here is that it leaves a blue link in Template:Hampden–Sydney Tigers football navbox, creating the impression that an article exists, and likely encouraging an ambitious editor to fill in the remaining redlinks for 2017, 2018, 2019, etc. Also, a redirect makes it too easy for someone to recreate the article since the full text remains in the history. We simply should not have articles for ordinary DIII seasons like this, and the appropriate result IMO remains deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2020 (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.