Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Duquesne Dukes 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Duquesne Dukes football team

[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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Nobody outside the school itself is writing about this team's individual seasons. Much of this content should be developed at the article about the team per WP:SPINOUT. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're similar articles about this team's non-notable seasons, many of which have one source or none at all:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all It's been well-established the NCAA Division I football seasons, virtually without exception, will pass GNG. The nominator here clearly did not perform a WP:BEFORE prior to making these nominations. The assertion that "Nobody outside the school itself is writing about this team's individual seasons" can be easily debunked by searching the archives of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Just for the 2011 season, there's a lot of in-depth coverage of the team: see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, plus AP recaps of every game like [6] and [7] (through ESPN). I imagine there are similar levels of coverage for the other seasons. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2011 season based on sources presented by TheCatalyst31, which establish notability under WP:GNG (and which someone will hopefully incorporate into the article). Reserving judgment on the other seasons until we see if similar coverage exists for these as well. Cbl62 (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of these articles should be evaluated separately under WP:GNG. For that reason, the bulk nomination is questionable. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2021 season. Coverage includes this, this, and this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing questionable about the bulk nomination: each article has the same failure of NSEASONS and GNG. The sources you point to are LOCAL or ROUTINE. If you would re-read my statement, no one is talking about a single football season as a unit, which is the subject of the article. Were this content cited at the article about the team, you could develop narratives about the season based upon coverage of each game but that's not what was done here. You can disagree with my assertions about which sources count and what they would need to say. You need not intone something nefarious. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, as a yardstick NCAA Division I football seasons are likely to be notable, particularly in the modern era. These teams have coverage by media, many of the games are televised, high attendance, and so on. As TheCatalyst31 points out, sources exist for 2011 and there's no reason to believe they don't exist for other seasons. A google news search for the past year on the team certainly shows plenty of sources.--Mvqr (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WP:SIGCOV exists per sources brought up in above comments. Frank Anchor 13:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, easily pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 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.