Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique 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. ansh 666 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Monique Bingham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encourages the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Stop rewarding the sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Drop the "falling cred" and "prizes for socks" stick. Anyone would have declined that G5. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write)  14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From my experience the VAST majority of admins delete this sort of spam. I don't know why the declining editor chose to give "prizes for socks" in this case. The more advertising Wikipedia allows, the less credible it is. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article doesn't read like a promo, and the subject is, in fact, notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.32.38 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per CSD G5, WP:PAID, and WP:BMB. Large UPE sockfarm. The rest doesn't matter: the current practice when dealing with UPE farms is to delete their contributions. I think 's decline was good (G5 is the most controversial criteria, and it is a good thing to have diversity in the admin corps in this topic), but unlike what claims, saying that anyone would have declined this is false: there are many other admins who would have delete this via G5, and that's okay: admin discretion is important, and two admins can look at the same set of circumstances and reasonably arrive at different conclusions.WP:BMB makes it clear: we don't care if the content is good or not if an editor has been banned. That is the reason G5 applies even after AfDs close as keep if we discover the creator was a sock after the close. The paid sock argument here is a strong one: this user both had no legal right to even hit the save button (WMF TOU violation) and they were also banned from doing so by local English Wikipedia policy. Deletion is the only option in this case. I would encourage any reviewing administrator to simply close this AfD as delete and not relist. No substantive arguments have been made for keeping it, and English Wikipedia policy clearly allows for deletion in these cases. If this has gone a week with no active editor arguing to keep, deleting on these grounds is uncontroversial and in line with policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (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.