Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Frimpong

: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. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

=[[Eric Frimpong]]=

:{{la|Eric Frimpong}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Frimpong}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Eric Frimpong}})

Only played in amateur football, was drafted without ever playing. As for the criminal case, it is rather an argument against having the article (per WP:BLP) than for having it. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I'd keep it. There has been a LOT of non-trivial press coverage of this case in the soccer media, as well as in the Southern California local press because of the apparent mishandling of the case from the Santa Barbara cops, lawyers, judge and jury. He most definitely passes WP:GNG from that standpoint alone - the fact that he is also a soccer player is secondary to the issues surrounding his trial and subsequent unsafe conviction. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep - he may fail WP:ATHLETE, but the significant coverage surrounding his trial means he passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Delete: as for his football/soccer career, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N; as for the rape conviction, he seems to fail WP:NTEMP as well. — Luxic (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable from a sports perspective, failing WP:ATHLETE having not played at a notable level, and no in-depth independent coverage. Rape conviction is not notable, NTEMP, and nothing particularly significant. I don't see anything encyclopedia worthy about an average rape case.--ClubOranje^T 07:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete a classic WP:BLP1E. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Sports-wise, he hasn't achieved anything of note or played at a professional level, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. The only news coverage he has received is for the rape case, which means the subject also fails WP:ONEVENT. Bettia (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Keeep Person has received international headlines because of his high profile court case and the lack of evidence before his conviction, I don't follow US football and know who he is. He meets the WP:Notable criteria in my opinion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

: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.