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. Not closing as withdrawn due to standing !deletes, but there is now a consensus here to keep per new sourcing. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[ talk to me} 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

K.F.C. Moerbeke

K.F.C. Moerbeke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a football team in the 8th division of the Belgian league pyramid. There is zero coverage about it online (apart from the usual stats websites). It was tagged in 2012 and it still fails notability guidelines. Recently PRODed then DEPRODed so nominating it here. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn by nominator - Gidonb found coverage in multiple reliable sources and article has been improved. Sgubaldo ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Europe, and Belgium. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete – The only source of the article is the club's Facebook page. Svartner ( talk) 17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This and all similar arguments below fail the golden WP:NEXIST rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, hence should be discounted to the fullest extent. gidonb ( talk) 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ GiantSnowman: - another editor has presented some sources below. I haven't looked at them, so have no opinion at this point, but as you asked to be pinged I have pinged you :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with nomination, unless someone can prove otherwise. Govvy ( talk) 20:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I am still a little on the fence, but I will strike my delete per the updates to the article. Govvy ( talk) 10:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As the person who originally PROD this, I agree here. HawkAussie ( talk) 09:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Since you raised the PROD yourself: why did you prod this if there is not even the beginning of a case for deletion? Which part of "must" in the following WP policy is unclear?

PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. gidonb ( talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• • Especially with sources now being put in and the article being expanded, I do feel like it's now a Keep. HawkAussie ( talk) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the above; unable to find any meaningful independent coverage of this club. Left guide ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the coverage presented below, which clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Left guide ( talk) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. No evidence of notability. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 14:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Constant coverage in HN, HLN, and GVA. [1] A few coverage examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] Note that Belgium doesn't have an equally accessible newspaper archive as Delpher in the Netherlands. So these examples are recent. The club has been around since 1927. gidonb ( talk) 07:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Significant coverage in two reliable sources identified by Gidonb. This discussion seems to be the worst kind of WP:SNOW with only Left guide having claimed to have done any searching. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sources just flagged by gidonb
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• While the nomination has been withdrawn, there are extant delete !votes so I h ave not closed it, but it's certainly also trending toward a keep thanks to the sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are good sources, so there are good reasons to keep the article despite the low league tier. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - @ Svartner:, @ HawkAussie:, @ Govvy:, Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Comment Keep per me? I posted delete above, but then nobody pinged me about changes to the article! So I might just strike my delete. Govvy ( talk) 10:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Not sure why this is still open. The deletes carry no weight. gidonb ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2024 (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.