The result was Consensus is to userfy all. Note that userfication cannot be permanent: if they are not salvageable in a reasonable amount of time, they must be deleted. I will move them to userspace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a Belgian club which never played above the country's provincial leagues or for the Belgian Cup. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN.", and according to what I've (not) seen, it's still valid. PROD was contested by Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) by saying "article creator is isn't (corrected as Wesley Mouse told me afterwards that it was a mistake) aware of adding new refs but is new to all this, so being taught what to do", which doesn't show why the club is considered notable.
For the same reason, I am also nominating the following articles:
The only possible claim of notability for SK Aaigem and FC Mere so far is this news article about a proposed merger between KRC Bambrugge, KFC Olympic Burst, SK Aaigem and FC Mere. However, this article alone doesn't consist "significant coverage", so Aaigem's and Mere's notability claims need to be reinforced by more independent reliable sources. The remaining nominated articles don't show any media coverage besides self-published sources, so they easily fail GNG. – Kosm1fent 17:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]