Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Prince

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Prince

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

Non-notable former college American football player. He has not played in the NFL and did not do anything notable as a college football player. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how you can say he is "non notable". He was UCLA's starting QB for multiple years. As the starting QB of a big school like that I'm sure enough coverage to pass
WP:GNG can be found.--Yankees10 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment I understand that, however, he was the starting QB during UCLA's down years and when they did not receive much coverage. If you or anyone else finds significant coverage of him, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. From a quick Google search of him, I only found one article from the LA Times mentioning him. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prince received extensive coverage in L.A. during his tenure at UCLA. Searching is complicated because we also have lots of hits for Kevin-Prince Boateng, but examples from the L.A. Times include [1][2][3][4]. I think the case would be stronger if someone could identify some non-routine coverage from a national source (or at least a source outside L.A.); I suspect such coverage did exist but my initial search didn't come up with something clear-cut and on-line. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, it wasn't as easy as I expected. But I did find [5] [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] I believe that is enough to pass GNG.--Yankees10 02:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Ok, I'll withdraw my own nom then. Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2014 (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.