The result was keep. This easily passes GNG and although there could be BLP1E issues although no-one has mentioned these. The majority of the delete arguments are under athlete, which has now been deprecated in favour of NSPORTS, which emphasises that GNG comes first. Therefore although the headcount is clearly for deletion under policy this is a keep Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Was previously deleted via AfD, but has been recreated. The player in question still has not made a senior appearance, so the same ATHLETE and GNG arguments that saw the article deleted before still apply. Not sure how similar this is to the article that was deleted, so I can't say whether it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4 or not. Big Dom 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak keep WP:ATHLETE means nothing here (it means nothing ever, given that it has always been considered secondary to the GNG). Nonetheless, on top of his U21 caps, here is evidence to suggest that he might pass the GNG. I may or may not consider looking for more later. WFC ( talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Nobody asserted his general notability in the first AfD. Two people have this time. You would think that an admin and an AfD addict would be aware that CSD G4 is therefore not applicable. Alas, they either are not aware, or are aware but decided to jump on the deletionist bandwagon anyway. Regards-- WFC ( talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply