Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bingham


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Bingham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I first of all used PROD for this article, as principal editor I am now nominating the article for deletion.

When I first found it, the article had an odd history. It was originally written solely by, whose sole contribution on wikipedia was writing the original article and uploading pictures of Mr Bingham to commons see  and. It seems fairly clear there was a WP:COI in the drafting of the original by someone with a close personal relationship to the subject and sharing their views.

Having reviewed the article as originally written it was apparent that it would fall foul of policies such as WP:BLP by allowing unsubstantiated allegations, such as those reported on Mr Bingham's websites, against living persons to be written as fact.

Having looked for sources to improve the article, the ones I found were WP:SPS produced by the subject of the article. These were his two websites and a book he wrote and self-published. The only none WP:SPS source was:

IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS SUPREME COURT Case No: SC/CIV/08/03 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT BETWEEN THE QUEEN

I was unaware of WP:BLPPRIMARY and since the subject of the article is now complaining that the article is libellous and I was responsible for most of the rewrite I am suggesting it should be deleted. I have tagged everthing sourced to the court documents and there would be very little left without it. I have continued to work on it but now the subject is threatening to sue me with the support of the Argentine Government. , I'd like to request  TNT WCM email 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nuke it - WP:TNT. Not sure this person is notable for more than just one event, namely a court case. Further, an IP claiming to be the subject of the article wants it removed (after making legal threats and personal attacks, of course). Give them their wish and nuke this thing. Relevant noticeboard postings: ANI and BLPN.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, as the named subject appears to be upset by the article, and it is a borderline notable BLP. Depending on how seriously we view the upset subject making legal threats, it should be deleted or redirected to Wildlife of the Falkland Islands.


 * However, I think much of the content, representing most of the references, should be merged to Wildlife of the Falkland Islands. It should cover the Falkland islands penguins, their decline in numbers, commercial fishing, and probably mention M. Bingham, seabirds.org and Falklands.net.  I believe that we may preserve the references without needing to preserve that article attribution history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is marginal at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete salt and block all the IPs claiming to be the person. They aren't notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, so it would be great to be rid of it and the block-evading IPs claiming to be this user. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per Joseph2302. No article, no legal threats, no problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - low notable person, article was turned into close to an attack page. Anti Diploma mill activism. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Assassinate it by throwing it out of a plane - I understand this was standard operating practice in Argentina. But suddenly calling your enemies out for their declining numbers of penguins while at the time the penguin numbers started declining one's own country had a history of creating deliberate declines in one's own number of humans does remind me somewhat of glass houses and aggregate-based projectiles.  Le petit fromage (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – only one secondary source (The Guardian) seems too tenuous to assert notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete the information about penguins - As the subject of this article I have no problem with how the article now reads. I apologise for loosing my temper when I saw what had been written about me. I have retracted my hasty threat of legal action and have apologised personally to the editors involved. They in turn have given me a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I realise that I went about things the wrong way and I apologise to all concerned. The massive decline in penguin numbers in the Falklands is backed up by peer-reviewed scientific papers cited in the article, as is the increase in these same penguins in nearby Chile and Argentina. The British Antarctic Survey census of Falklands penguins published under the paper "The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands" (Croxall JP, McInnes SJ & Prince PA (1984), ICBP Technical Publication No.2, 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge) quotes the Falkland Islands Rockhopper penguin population as 2.5 million breeding pairs. The integrity of the British Antarctic Survey is beyond reproach and must surely be a sound citacion. The peer-reviewed sceintific papers cited in the current article show that this 2.5 million dropped by 88% in 11 years to just 300,000 breeding pairs by 1995. The fishing industry was officially established in 1988. The reason for this massive decline in the Falklands, and increases just 500 km away in Chile and Argentina, is due to over-fishing in the Falklands which leads to the starvation of chicks, and lack of reproduction to replace old penguins, leading to gradual decline. The overwhelming evidence is explained in great detail in the peer-reviewed citation given in the current article "The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry". This important information supporting the need for controls over commercial fishing near to penguin colonies is now helping to protect penguins around the world, and I hope it does not get deleted because of my mistakes in handling this matter. Please note that my book 'The Falklands Regime' which I fully accept was originally a self-published book, is now published in Spanish by a genuine publishing house (http://www.lsf.com.ar/libros/00/REGIMEN-DE-LAS-MALVINAS-EL/). I do not know if this makes it an acceptable citation for my penguin work. The penguin declines and my activities in the Falklands were also featured in a documentary by the BBC (BBC2, "Explore - Patagonia to the Pampas" 25th January 2009). I apologise again for not being more familair with how things are done on Wikipedia and for not going about things the right way the first time. Mike Bingham 190.178.197.152 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Bingham, if we are to include your material on Penguins we are also required per WP:NPOV to note your work and your conclusions was criticised by Prof John Croxall, your co-author. We'd also have to point out the major crash in Penguin population in the Falkland Islands occurred in 1986 (attributed to the starvation of adult birds during moult)) and predates the fishing industry in the Falklands.  We'd also have to point a major cause of Penguin mortality was down to an outbreak of Avian Pox and finally that the Penguin population in the islands has since recovered see .  The work reported there contradicts one of your assertions, noting a regional crash in Penguin numbers.  I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs but wikipedia doesn't exist to publish your research.  WCM email 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings WCM. John Croxall was not my co-author in any of these publications. During my time in the Falklands from 1993 to 2004 John Croxall lived and worked in Cambridge and never conducted any research whatsoever in the Falklands or in any country where these penguins live. As such I cannot see what scientific basis exists for his comments on this topic. I welcome all properly cited views about the causes of the Falklands penguin decline. But please remember that Falklands Conservation, of which John Croxall was Chairman, only existed courtesy of annual grants from the Falkland Islands Government. I know this because I ran Falklands Conservation from 1993 to 1997, preparing these annual grant requests, and I know the pressure employed to keep the decline of penguins hushed up. That was the basis for my dispute with John Croxall, Falkands Conservation and the Falkland Islands Government. Many people feel that protecting the fishing industry that sustains the Falklands economy from conservation measures that would reduce this income is more important than penguins. I respect their opinion, but felt that the truth needed to be published so that everyone had a right to decide, not just those with vested interests. I therefore took the decision to risk loosing my job by publishing the results of the decline in penguins in the peer-reviewed scientific journal 'Oryx', against the wishes of my employer. I was not re-employed and 'Oryx' were threatened by the Falkland Islands Government not to publish, on the basis that the penguin census data of 1995 showing the collapse in penguin populations was confidential information owned by my employer. After analysing the terms of my contract, which had no clause about ownership of the data collected during my employment, and the fact that the penguin census had been a joint project, funded by the Wellcome Foundation, and using over 100 volunteers, including the RAF Ornithological Society, the lawyers ruled that my employers were not the sole owners of the data and that I had a legal right to publish the information. The data was finally published in 'Oryx' in 1998. I do not expect you to take my word for any of this or even to use it. I merely mention this history so as to point out the need for scrutinising the scientific credibility of information being presented. The most reliable citations are peer-reviewed scientific publications because they have been scrutinised by other independent specialists in the same scientific field.

The Falklands fishing industry officially began in 1988, in so far as that is when the government began selling permits to fish in Falklands waters, but in reality the fishing began long before 1988. So the mass penguin starvations of 1986 and 2002 both fit the time-frame perfectly (I give peer-reviewed citations below). The Mercopress article you cited appears to be an opinion rather than a scientific publication. Mercopress even states "Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users". Even so this article confirms that rockhopper penguins have declined: 1984 = 2,500,000 pairs (cited in the British Antarctic Survey in their peer-reviewed scientific publication that I cited previously) 1995 = 300,000 pairs (cited in the various peer-reviwed scientific journals that are already stated in this Wikipedia article) 2015 = 189,000 pairs in the article you cited. By all means add this citation if you think it is sufficiently reliable, since it only confirms the decline in rockhopper penguins. Below are other reliable scientific publications that support my conclusions with full reference to their sources: 1. "Inshore fishing around the Falklands has a negative impact on Gentoo, Rockhopper and Magellanic penguins" (Boersma PD (1991) Asynchronous hatching and food allocation in the Magellanic penguin. Acta XX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici: 961-973.) 2. "Prior to 1988 fishing around the Falkland Islands was intensive and totally unregulated, threatening fish and squid stocks" (Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48) 3. "Recommend that there be no inshore fisheries (within 30 miles of the coast) in the Falklands. Restrict industrial fishing from areas of known concentrated penguin use at sea (including wintering and foraging areas for fledglings). Argentina and the Falklands should establish an integrated series of marine reserves and zones." Luna et al. (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Report, IUCN) 4. "Diet sample analysis shows that there is competition between penguins and commercial fisheries". "For the Falklands the main factor influencing breeding success and recruitment is assumed to be local food supply" (Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807.) 5. "Not only does the removal of preferred prey force penguins to feed their chicks less favourable species, but it can also lead to greater foraging duration, with chicks receiving less food" (Radl A & Culik BM (1998) Foraging behaviour and reproductive success in Magellanic penguins: a comparative study of two colonies in southern Chile. Marine Biology 133: 381-393.) Thank you for your time. Mike Bingham. 190.178.197.152 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This really isn't an appropriate place to be discussing the Falklands penguin population. The only issue to be decided here is whether we keep or delete the Bingham biography - which comes down to whether there is sufficient coverage of the individual in reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. Can I ask that people please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. This article, could be moved & redirected to the Falklands penguin population.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved, or redirected? I can't see how one can usefully do both - and can't see much merit in doing either. If we want an article on Falklands penguins, it should be written from scratch, based around all relevant sources, rather than focussing on one individual's research. If Bingham's research is significant, it should of course be included - but under the normal WP:WEIGHT constraints. And again, we are discussing the Bingham biography here, not content on penguins - whether an article on penguins is justified is of no relevance to this AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think it should be written from scratch, probably using nothing more from this biography than the reference list. It would be great if Mike could assist.  I see him here trying to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that asking someone with a vested interest in promoting their own research is a bad idea per WP:COI. I am rather concerned at the way he dismissed the views of Professor John Croxall CBE, FRS as part of a wider conspiracy theory.  Prof Croxall's statement was "By any scientific standard, Bingham’s presentation represented a substantial deliberate misrepresentation of data (and a position substantially at variance with that taken in “his” paper in Oryx (1998), based on exactly the same data). His presentation has removed any vestiges of scientific credibility among the penguin research community" and thats a pretty damning indictment.  If we're going to apply normal wikipedia standards of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT then I don't see how we can avoid mentioning it.  Particularly when two papers by the same individual apparently conflict.   And for information Mr Bingham, I have copies of the papers, which I'm happy to share, and Prof Croxall is indeed a co-author on several.  WCM email 08:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that my views should hold any greater weight than any other scientifically supported arguments. Science is a process. The greatest scientists in history ALL published theories that were later modified as new evidence came to light. This is how science evolves, and I do not deny that my opinions also evolved between 1996 and 2003, as more data became available. In 1996 John Croxall helped me with the wording of a manuscript, because as Chairman of Falklands Conservation he was effectively my boss, and I had a contractual obligation to let him control what I wrote. I was limited to saying "There is no direct evidence that food availability to penguins has been affected by commercial fishing, but this possibility cannot be ruled out". Croxall lived in Britain and never actually participated in any penguin research in the Falklands during the entire time that I studied penguins in the Falklands (1993 - 2004). May I ask what is the citation for the comments made by John Croxall, and whether they were personal comments or a peer-reviewed publication? I agree that I did make one big mistake in my 1998 Oryx article, in failing to be aware of the existence of the British Antarctic Survey penguin census performed in 1984, which quoted the Falklands rockhopper penguin population as 2,500,000 pairs. This was vital information, since with just my 1995 population census data available showing a population of 300,000 pairs, I was unable to know that an 88% decline had taken place since 1984; an 88% decline in 11 years, during which the commercial fishing industry was established. Obviously my conclusions changed when I eventually discovered the existence of this peer-reviewed population census data. Is it really fair for Croxall to say that I lost all "scientific credibilty" for being "at variance with that taken in “his” paper in Oryx (1998) based on exactly the same data"? It was this quotation about my 'scientific credibility' that began this whole issue. I think the discovery of a published British Antarctic Survey penguin census conducted just a few years before my arrival in the Falklands, quoting 8 times the population that was recorded in 1995, gave me just cause to be at 'variance' with my previous conclusions published in 'Oryx', which lacked all knowledge of this vital data. It is interesting that John Croxall as co-author of that 1984 publication never made me aware of its existence, so that a better conclusion about the decline of Falklands penguins could have been published in Oryx. I ask nothing more than that my publications are given the same weight as other peer-reviewed scientific articles, and that opposing views are held to the same standard. I welcome discussion on this topic and I applied for a Wikipedia account a week ago, but all I have received so far is "your request will be reviewed, and you will shortly receive a separate email with more information". Does it normally take so long to get an account, or is it that my input is not welcome? Mike Bingham 190.178.196.83 (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)190.178.196.83 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2015 (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.