Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring

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 keep. John254 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Syring

Delete. WP:NOT#INFO. Thousands of people are indicted every year, and, under WP:BLP1E, they don't get WP:BIOgraphy pages unless they were notable before the indictment. Yeah, it's a felony, and it got mentioned by AP and some left-wing blogs, but this guy isn't Seung-Hui Cho. The page is an orphan. In the alternative, if editors believe this is a notable case, I suggest moving to United States v. Syring. THF 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is notable for his position and his conduct while in that position, not merely because he was indicted.Lfp 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was floored by this story and have never heard of a State Department diplomat being indicted for threatening minorities with racist language. This story is global and goes far beyond "the AP and some left-wing blogs". However, I would agree that the subject himself is not of biographical interest, and would concur moving to United States v. Syring provided Patrick Syring re-directed. Lfp 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of 21 August, Google News coverage in the international press is limited to repeats of wire-service information. No diplomatic reaction. THF 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an ongoing story though, right? According to this, he'll be arraigned on August 30th. I suspect the case will generate more reaction as it moves through the legal system. Popkultur 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. (Though the story will get more notice when it's discovered that Pat1425 was editing Zogby's wikipedia page in 2006.) THF 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was pretty sure it was him...if someone was trolling with his name, the Pat1425 account would've been created more recently. Are you serious, that Pat1425's edits could cause more trouble for Syring? A friend of mine said that since the case hasn't yet gone to trial, this could be considered manipulating the jury pool. Hopefully this won't cause him more trouble than he's already got. Totally off-topic, but interesting nonetheless. Popkultur 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, rather than trouble, since the media seems to love Wikipedia stories. There isn't a "manipulating-the-jury-pool" risk since Syring could buy a full-page ad to say the same thing if he were so inclined. Of course, some of his edits to his article could be viewed as admissions or evidence in court if the Wikipedia account is linked to him. Of course, this assumes that Pat1425 is Syring, which is only an allegation in an indictment. THF 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The international media does not have to add new facts to a straightforward story for it to be globally significant, and Ministers of State do not have to make public comments for an event to have diplomatic consequences. In fact, the story was covered by AP and Reuters and was picked up, and edited, by news sources around the world, as I said earlier.

Here is an editorial from Cyprus about the story.

Here is coverage in Malaysian news source.

Here is a story from Bahrain, not a re-print of the wire services.

Here is a story from Lebanon, again not a direct copy of the wire service stories.Lfp 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Lfp, it's pretty bizarre for a diplomat to be indicted on these charges. Even stranger is that he was posted in Lebanon during the 1990's! It definitely reflects badly on State. I agree that in order to "cover the event, and not the person" this article should be moved to United States v. Syring, but I disagree that the article should be deleted entirely. I also agree that the biography is unimportant to the event. Popkultur 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre story long past the WP:CRYSTAL stage by now, no matter how THF spins it. Indicted? Reported by the AP? A keeper. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the AP wire service story and the stories by 4 newspapers around the world which were not reprints of the AP story. A bio article about this would seem to be a WP:COATRACK since he was not a very notable State Department employee before the rants started, so per Wikipedia policies the article should be retitled to United States v. Syring as suggested by THF, to better describe the court case resulting from the defamatory messages. The facts that the indictment charges that the inflammatory emails from [email protected] came from the defendant, and that Wikipedia account Pat1425 was established March 8, 2005 and was used to edit the articles on Syring and on Zogby, may cause bad publicity for Wikipedia, but that has no real bearing on the AFD. Edison 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move While it may be a one-day wonder, the indictment is international news. The article isn't based on the fact of indictment, but on the notability created by the news coverage thereof. I don't entirely agree that the article is a WP:COATRACK; the indictment is the major piece of notability, but the bio material gives it context. Much of that bio material would be needed (overseas posting, career at State, education in foreign service) if the article were moved. However, Wikipedia's purposes would be met under either name. (If it stays as a BIO, WP:BLP might be better enforced...?) Studerby 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I won't object to a rename to, say, Patrick Syring harassment case (which is far more descriptive than U.S. v Syring, which I doubt it is ever really called in the media). This ties right in with administration policies and regional objectives, which is why it's (at least potentially) explosive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move. Clearly notable, though I agree with the above comment that if nothing more comes out of it than the case, the article should be about the case and moved to reflect that. There is a sourcing problem - the article should have reliable sources. IN case it isn't clear from the above here are two [1] and [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 08:40, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Keep"Thousands of people are indicted every year," writes the nominator for deletion but the point that tries to make is false for it overlooks the crucial fact: How many of these thousands find themselves to be US diplomats, official officers of the US embassy indicted on such serious charges? Who he was when he perpetrated this crime, as a respresentative of the State, makes him notable as is evidenced by the fact that this has been an international story. Of course, the US press, as is typical, will downplay it, but that is to be expected with the kind of media we have in the US. In anycase, this is not ordinary, its newsworthy, has been picked up by the press, and is an on-going event.Giovanni33 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose any redirect. A former U.S. Ambassador, who had served in a diplomatic post in the Middle East, said, "The only good Arab is a dead Arab." That would be notable whether or not he were indicted. JamesMLane t c 23:40, 26 August 2007 (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.