- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SC Badhoevedorp[edit]
- SC Badhoevedorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The team fails WP:COMPANY. It is an amateur team with no significant coverage. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 15 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.