Talk:1992 Carleton Knights football team

For the record
I would never have started this article and it is of borderline notability. It could use some more non-routine sources. But if other cfb experts think it merits an article, I won't argue. Given that, and considering what I've said about table articles, I have to say a results table just looks better than the short game paragraphs. If there are no objections, I'll create the table soon. I'll also try to get the notable points into decent prose paragraphs. Thanks to Cfb62 for the work. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 20:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A well-constructed season article should have both a "Schedule" table and "Game summaries". Feel free to build the table and to expand the summaries as well. See, e.g., 1966 Michigan Wolverines football team.  As for notability, this article is a step below 1953 Chico State Wildcats football team -- Chico State plays in Division II, and Carleton in Division III. If you think 1953 Chico State is not notable, then this one is even more clearly not notable. Of course, I disagree and believe both are borderline but have sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The '53 Wildcats article is good, I've no problem with it. I'll put my point on your talk page. Thanks again for the great work. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)