Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Pring

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SpinningSpark 01:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Pring

[edit]
Barry Pring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author contested PROD. Subject seems to have a lack of significant coverage. Seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Ducknish (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is important as it involves several high profile figures - from Ukraine's first president to the current UK Prime Minister. It also ties into themes of corruption in Ukraine, Ukrainian history and internet dating. So I certainly appreciate your feedback, and I do feel this merits inclusion. talk 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of public interest. What happened between Barry and his internet bride is just one example of many. It just so happens that this is the only one that has hit the headlines in such a big way. It is an industry, and people need to be made aware of the risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffope (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Cliffope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's hardly arbitrary. Please read the edit summaries. The content related to Barry Pring that you are repeatedly adding to multiple articles is inappropriate for the reasons I have given. Peacock (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully cannot agree with that Peacock. Your reasoning and methods are not in accordance with wikipedia standards, in this instance. NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would seem that the significance of this article has been proven by enough contributors now. Barry Pring's story is notable for several reasons - high-profile murder victim, impact on careers of several well-known figures, impact on crime in Ukraine, connection to internet dating and legal issues. Plus, the fact that the case is still open and likely to become even more high profile. User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not misinterpret my recent edits as supporting a finding of noteworthiness of this article. I acted solely with a view to upholding the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). Per this policy, unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious material about living persons (in this case, about Anna Ziuzina), occurring anywhere on Wikipedia, must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (including, in this case, an AfD discussion).
  • Comment -- If kept, rename to Death of Barry Pring. It is not clear if the wife arranged for a running over. If she did not, she would have been entitled (as his widow) to the whole or a substantial part of his intestate estate, so that her actions were probably not theft, the innuendo of the article. If she is guilty of murder. as a matter of public policy, she could not inherit. We have a lot of articles on notorious unexplained deaths. And this is just another one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with PCock and others regarding the removal of coatracking mentions of the Pring case in other articles. As to whether the Barry Pring article is or is not sufficiently noteworthy to stay on Wikipedia, I am not taking a position either way. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NorthLondoner and GrahamWPhillips are (by the user's own admission) the same user. The "NorthLondoner" account has been indefinitely blocked, and the user has been advised (and has agreed) to use only the "GrahamWPhillips" account from now on.
Additionally, readers should note that a sockpuppet investigation is currently in progress, studying the claim that Cliffope might possibly be a sockpuppet of GrahamWPhillips / NorthLondoner. Any discussion of whether Cliffope is or is not a sock should take place at the SPI page, not here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a sock puppet, and have only ever used one account and the username given. I requested that my username be changed to GrahamWPhillips. It went through, changed my talk page name, but until latterly not my username, I had just let it be.

The idea of using my real name was that I wanted to be completely transparent. I am a journalist, and I guess will put information on wikipedia that I uncover for certain articles. But of course I'd like this all done in adherence to wikipedia standards and practice. I do believe the Barry Pring article to be important, and worthy of inclusion. User: GrahamWPhillips

      • In terms of the other edits, I did not see them as coatracking, rather adding relevant information. However, I accepted the decisions made on those edits after they had been properly discussed.

I am certainly not Cliffope, or any other user. Best, User: GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as that article no longer exists, how do you feel now about deletion? Ducknish (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Should be Renamed to Murder of Barry Pring if it can be saved. Otherwise I'm rather ambivalent.--Auric talk 03:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Pring's death may have shed light on important and newsworthy issues, Pring himself is not notable. Unfortunately, he is only known due to his death. He cannot inherit notability due to the cause of his death or the issues brought up or highlighted by his death. I am concerned with the violations of the BLP policy regarding Zuizina. In my opinion, with all due respect, it appears as though this article and others may have been created to promote a book. Wikipedia is not a promotional or marketing tool or an outlet for news. While the issues may be notable, Pring is not. Cindy(need help?) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I declare an interest in this, having written about it as a journalist. In considering the article, please consider -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson

I believe that Barry Pring's case is as significant as these - of course each is a very sad story. Hence, a page Murder of Barry Pring would seem to be a suitable option. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fallacious to suggest that the article ought to be included because other crimes are. Such a claim presupposes that those articles ought to be included as well, a presupposition I'm not willing to make. But even if you wished to bring the comparison, I feel that the articles linked have, at least to a degree, a greater amount of lasting notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ducknish - I think what would help would be an explanation on your part as to why these other cases have greater lasting notability. Also I'm sure you would accept that you have pushed very persistently for this article to be deleted. Could you provide examples of other articles you have put in the same effort to effect the deletion of? That will help demonstrate NPOV, thanks again GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say also that the Barry Pring article should be regarded in the context of these 73 other articles on British people murdered abroad -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_murdered_abroad

GrahamWPhillips (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people in this category are notable mainly for reasons unrelated to their murder. Ducknish (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are certainly a very good editor Ducknish, but I think you will need to be more specific than 'vast majority' if you are continuing to petition for Barry Pring's page to be deleted entirely. I do not share your view of 'vast majority' in this instance, however your feedback is ever valued. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vast majority is certainly hyperbole, but the point is that the inclusion of other potential non-notable murder victims does not serve to justify the inclusion of this one. It simply shows that perhaps there are other articles that need to have their notability examined as well. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_Pring&oldid=1146597290"