The result was keep. As far as the specific article under discussion here is concerned, it's clear that we now have a reasonable stub and consensus to keep it. This is not to necessarily excuse the behaviour of its original creator - the only reason this article is up to vaguely encyclopedic standards now is because others have pitched in to rescue it. Creation of contentless stubs to create busywork for others is disruptive, and the next step is probably to consider action against the creator at ANI rather than against the articles at AfD. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no content here only a listing of players. This is one of many that this user has created, although I'm only nominating this one at this time.
This creation cycle has been going on for quite a while and almost all of these articles are the same. They are literally just a roster of players with flags and positions.
These are stubs of almost no encyclopedic value (textbook WP:NOT#STATS), nor do they provide any special advantage for later contributors (over just creating the article from scratch). I would not be nominating if they were of stub class, but these are not. Shadowjams ( talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply