Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian professional football license


 * 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 delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Belgian professional football license

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources are cited, other than deadlink to Belgian FA website. Meanwhile, this page has been up for so long, many mirrors have copied the content. Found one international comparative study in International Sports Law Review via Wikipedia Library, but it's about the licensing of coaches, not about licences for clubs in Belgium. There could be a section about licensing of clubs on the Royal Belgian Football Association page, but it would have to have sources, which this page does not. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete most countries have entry requirements to be in particular leagues, but these are not notable enough for articles about them. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on how to get football teams into leagues. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Should you not bundled Belgian remunerated football license with this? I was thinking there might be a redirect option. But not seeing that. So will also side with delete. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now also nominated that one too. I felt it was too late to include it as we already had a consensus here. Wouldn't mind if you closed this debate, however (if you want of course, and if you do, thanks). Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I just realized that since you're involved you can't close this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero sources not counting a lone deadlink WesSirius (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. It's a thing that seems to exist, but it's not a notable thing that warrants a standalone article. While there are some articles on broad-stroke topics like a business license, more niche licenses like this one are not likely to be notable on their own just because of how niche they are, and this article's subject is no exception. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The only way that this would be notable is if a club that literally hated television, money, and fans rejected getting this license, or loves those things and since they can't fit outright to get it, received a waiver to get one (mainly due to field size, seating, or light issues), and even then it's a minor after-season or pre-season note that's usually taken care of ASAP because you want to get into a premier league.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Serratra (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable -- Devoke water  11:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.