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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian remunerated football license (edit | 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)

Similar case to Belgian professional football license, this article fails WP:GNG and has no evidence of notability. It's just a thing that exists but does not merit a standalone article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same non-notability reasonings as the other article linked by nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian professional football license regards Govvy (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:24, 19 January 2023 (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.