From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:SNOW; true nominator is AWOL and as proxy nominator I am withdrawing given the below. ( non-admin closure) Duonaut ( talk |  contribs) 03:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

R.A.E.C. Mons (2015)

R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) (  | 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)

Started on behalf of User:Sofiane44 (a French speaker), who has said that it's a duplication. I'll let them do the argument for deletion as I wouldn't know. Duonaut ( talk |  contribs) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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
  • Keep the 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. Joseph 2302 ( 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. Pelotas talk| contribs 09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 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
  • Keep per above.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 20:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per everything above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 04:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:29, 15 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:SNOW; true nominator is AWOL and as proxy nominator I am withdrawing given the below. ( non-admin closure) Duonaut ( talk |  contribs) 03:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

R.A.E.C. Mons (2015)

R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) (  | 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)

Started on behalf of User:Sofiane44 (a French speaker), who has said that it's a duplication. I'll let them do the argument for deletion as I wouldn't know. Duonaut ( talk |  contribs) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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
  • Keep the 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. Joseph 2302 ( 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. Pelotas talk| contribs 09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 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
  • Keep per above.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 20:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per everything above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 04:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:29, 15 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook