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.
Comment - this does not seem to be a duplication, as there are apparently two separate club histories involved.
R.A.E.C. Mons (1910) was established in 1910, going bankrupt in 2015.
R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) seems to have started in 1945 as AS Quévy-le-Grand et Extensions, but assumed the RAEC Mons name in 2020. The Dutch Wikipedia seems to distinguish these teams with two separate team numbers:
nl:RAEC Mons (44) and
nl:RAEC Mons (4194). Also note the apparent
WP:COI motivation with recent edits
[1].
Dl2000 (
talk)
01:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keepthe communications manager told me to edit this is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, they are clearly two different clubs with two different histories, so should have two different articles, as is the case with multiple other football/sports clubs that have ceased to exist and then re-created later on.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
07:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Two distinct clubs. Older one defaulted in 2015 and ceased to exist, played at top level and reached semis in cup (R.A.E.C. Mons (1910) article needs correction because these officially do not exist anymore). The new club took over the name of the old one. So it's in fact a neighbouring club that took over the place as main club of the city of Mons. No significant results but playing at 5th level, which is national and enters cup yearly, so meets notability guidelines.
Pelotastalk|contribs09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment seems that the person who I proxy-nominated for has ignored this discussion. Assuming no one has any contrary opinions to the above, I'll close/withdraw (unsure which it would technically be) in a few days.
Duonaut(
talk |
contribs)22:37, 13 October 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.
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.
Comment - this does not seem to be a duplication, as there are apparently two separate club histories involved.
R.A.E.C. Mons (1910) was established in 1910, going bankrupt in 2015.
R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) seems to have started in 1945 as AS Quévy-le-Grand et Extensions, but assumed the RAEC Mons name in 2020. The Dutch Wikipedia seems to distinguish these teams with two separate team numbers:
nl:RAEC Mons (44) and
nl:RAEC Mons (4194). Also note the apparent
WP:COI motivation with recent edits
[1].
Dl2000 (
talk)
01:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keepthe communications manager told me to edit this is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, they are clearly two different clubs with two different histories, so should have two different articles, as is the case with multiple other football/sports clubs that have ceased to exist and then re-created later on.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
07:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Two distinct clubs. Older one defaulted in 2015 and ceased to exist, played at top level and reached semis in cup (R.A.E.C. Mons (1910) article needs correction because these officially do not exist anymore). The new club took over the name of the old one. So it's in fact a neighbouring club that took over the place as main club of the city of Mons. No significant results but playing at 5th level, which is national and enters cup yearly, so meets notability guidelines.
Pelotastalk|contribs09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment seems that the person who I proxy-nominated for has ignored this discussion. Assuming no one has any contrary opinions to the above, I'll close/withdraw (unsure which it would technically be) in a few days.
Duonaut(
talk |
contribs)22:37, 13 October 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.