Talk:Andrew Bingham

Notability of campaigns
Gosh - an awful lot of detail about some very local campaigns that don't really attract anything other than very local sources (is the Buxton Advertiser in any way "regional" in the way we'd use it at WP:GNG?). It seems far too detailed to me - a summary, as I've done for the charity etc... work section would seem to be much more sustainable - given that he could be an MP for a long time we'd need an entire web server soon to cover just his campaigns and charity events. I'm also more than a little concerned that there's an awful lot of use of the MPs own website - which is, clearly, promotional in nature (that's the job of an MPs website). I'd welcome thoughts before I go through and gut this... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tidied it up but I thought exactly the same thing. Struck me as borderline (at best) on notability, reliable sources and neutrality. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You raise fair points about the size of a couple of the campaign sections - obviously these grew organically in light of events locally and are probably too large. Having said that, all four campaigns currently on there did (and some still do) gather a huge amount of attention, although as the Corbar Birth Centre and EMAS issues are now relatively settled those two larger sections could certainly now be 'summarised'.
 * I also take on board the point about there being too much use of the MP's own website for sources. Regarding your point about very local sources though, I would say that due to the rural nature of the area there isn't much regional press coverage of the area at all, and the Buxton Advertiser—covering the whole area, including towns and villages over 15 miles to the north—is easily the most comprehensive and 'regional' news source there is for the area. Paperballpark (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments - fully appreciate them. Perhaps you'd like to have a go at reducing the section a bit?! My gut feeling says 2 or 3 paragraphs would be ideal - I would agree that the campaigns look, in general, fairly important for the local area and are exactly the sorts of things that a good local MP should be doing. We just need to cut down on the detail I think, and take care to avoid promotion of course. Your point about the Buxton Advertiser is probably fair - I guess we just need to make sure we're not allowing fluff pieces to stand up as journalism per se (I know the very local papers here will take anything promotional from a school, for example, and give it a half a page to fill space.


 * If you want to take a go at the article then please, you're clearly in a better position to do so. We can then tidy anything up I guess!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've now summarised the Campaigns section, cutting out a lot of the specific detail and also removing most of the references to the MP's own website. I hope the changes make the section better. Paperballpark (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and good job. I wonder if it might be better without the subheads actually, but we'll see perhaps. I think sometimes we add subheadings when, actually, prose might work better? Worth a thought and I might take a go at trying that at some point. Of course, it might not work like that at all! Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work both. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work :) Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Bingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808221949/http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andrew-bingham/35370 to http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andrew-bingham/35370
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001092432/http://www.tamesidereporter.com/fullstory.php?paper=1&ID=857 to http://www.tamesidereporter.com/fullstory.php?paper=1&ID=857
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001092442/http://www.tamesidereporter.com/fullstory.php?paper=1&ID=894 to http://www.tamesidereporter.com/fullstory.php?paper=1&ID=894
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831113415/http://www.andrewbingham.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2 to http://www.andrewbingham.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)