Deletion of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry

Comment: the article could have been created by a banana slug for all I care... I see significant coverage in the https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/alabama-oklahoma-tide-rolls-into-the-college-football-playoff-final-with-45-34-win/2018/12/29/7b7cfd38-0b90-11e9-85b6-41c0fe0c5b8f_story.html?utm_term=.2dfb828395ff Washington Post "Alabama handles Oklahoma, will renew CFP rivalry with Clemson in final" and https://www.postandcourier.com/columnists/sapakoff-alabama-vs-clemson-is-the-best-top-level-football/article_fb3ee112-0d2a-11e9-aaa2-6b0222cc92f3.html Charleston Post-Courier "Sapakoff: Alabama vs Clemson is the best top-level football rivalry, college or NFL — ever"  this to me looks like a clear pass of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Article was created by a notorious SPA who is now blocked re SOCK. One hallmark of their edits is creation of insufficiently sourced rivalry articles such as this one (most/all of the associated cleanup AfDs have passed when nominated).  states {{tq|If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.}}  Searches might return articles tied to this week's news cycle which contain the "R" word, but fail GNG in my view on lack of depth. Likely , barring discovery of significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:GNG||:WP:TOOSOON)