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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV Nuenen[edit]

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

Redirected, since it is a non-notable amateur club which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Redirect was reverted with the rationale it clearly met WP:FOOTYN, although their is no indication that this club ever played for the national cup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - At the time of nomination the article looked like this, with no indication it passed NFOOTY, since there was no mention of having played in the national cup. NFOOTY is pretty clear on the distinction for inclusion as having played in the national cup, not simply being eligible to play in the cup. Any of the clubs in the amateur league which have actually played in the cup are notable as per NFOOTY, those that haven't, aren't. Am glad to see the effort Gidonb has now put into the article. Since it is now clear that the club has played in the national cup, which was nowhere mentioned prior to the nomination, I withdraw that nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep RKSV Nuenen is a Dutch Hoofdklasse club that easily meets WP:FOOTYN. Under the section club notability FOOTYN states with the bold in the source: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. As RKSV Nuenen and all teams in its league participate in the national cup, the serial deletion of such football clubs, without any warnings or discussion, is unacceptable. The last discussion of this sort ended in speedy keep and this one should as well. The club is notable also under WP:GNG and WP:ORG but the fact that that the relevant policy is so clear should be sufficient to again speedy keep. In fact players at these amateur clubs get paid. Netherlands is among many nations that keep paid players amateurs so they could play as amateurs in international venues. These clubs participate and succeed in the national cup, including, specifically RKSV Nuenen. Just linked one of these cups back to the club! I suggest that deletor undoes all his deletions given our policy and withdraws the nomination given the clear conflict with our clear policy, there to overcome widespread problems of sports fraud (i.e. nominal amateurist leagues where players and staff are professionals). BTW the Hoofdklasse is also a national league, would one disregard the national cup, however, since the Netherlands does have a national cup structure, WP:FOOTYN is clear that this is what matters. gidonb (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - club has played in the KNVB Cup, the Dutch national cup, per this amomgst others. Therefore notable as Gidonb states above. Giant Snowman 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cup appearances. Number 5 7 08:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition, as reliably sourced above. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2017 (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.