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 as a non-notable individual. --jonny-m t 05:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marshall Bond[edit]

Subject appears to be of less-than-marginal notability. Furthermore, it appears that the article's author is the son of the article's subject [1], which offers a bit of sticky WP:COI. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are Portuguese. To argue that a profile of the founder of the Caribbean Food Crop Society is marginal is the equivalent of an argument that a profile on the founder of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce must be marginal because after all it is in Portugal. I think you have a stronger argument on the basis of COI but I think some third party who is both 1) impartial and 2)familiar with his contributions would be helpful. RichardBond (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My heritage is irrelevant to this discussion, though I will gladly take out my guitar and play April in Portugal if the discussion gets dull. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Caribbean Food Crops Society (which would make Richard Marshall Bond a redirect) and rearrange article's context. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco, I had this sort of argument before when someone felt that Seattle was not a notable City while they were trying to add every village in England. Speaking of songs there were complaints about the first Conference as the United States paid for the Colonial Prime Ministers to stay in a five star hotel. It was part of the competition against Castro. Some St. Vincentians got upset that their island Government decided to close the sugar mill. An American heard about it and wrote "Joshua Gone Barbados" RichardBond (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't - you are referring to me, and I need to set straight that I never argued that Seattle was a non-notable city. You need to actually demostrate notability through publication in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Given that I have now been indirectly mentioned in this AfD, I will not be making a !vote Fritzpoll (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brewercrewer, My father is actually better known in the United States for his work with Falconry. Few people here in the US have jobs that depend on falcons. For the first three years at CFCS he was a big fish in a small pond. He also founded the school where Tim Duncan learned to play Basketball, I will put together a page on the CFCS though RichardBond (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability per WP:BIO is demonstrated. At the moment there is very little to go on in terms of substantive coverage by third-party reliable sources. GoogleBooks also produces very little[2], mostly references to catalogues/listst of Yale graduates. Might concievably be notable per WP:PROF but that case has not been made either. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were a fair number of Google hits under Richard M. Bond in relation mostly to his work with ornithology. He was considered to be one of the 250 top specialist in ornithology in the US by Cooper Ornithological Society. His specialty was falcons particularly the Peregrine. RichardBond (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a third-party source that tells us that he was some notable expert. It isn't enough to tell us what he wrote - look at WP:N Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and author has not only a COI but a confrontational approach to article creation.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with the delete stance (see below), but please confine comments to the content. Notability is determined without regard to the motivations and approach of any individual author. Also, WP:COI does not automatically exist just because the author is related to the subject. It is the nature of the edits themselves, not the position of the author, that determines COI. Frank | talk 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Publishing a paper doesn't automatically confer notability. However, if it can be established by WP:RS, I would change my opinion. Frank | talk 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lete, de Lete (I apologize, couldn't resist) In addition to the likely WP:COI problems and lack of evidence of meeting WP:BIO by using independent reliable assertions to enable verifiability of notability, the article itself would need a complete organization to make it encyclopedic. Sometimes it is better to scrape clean and start anew, but there is not much in the article to indicate that it would be worth the effort. B.Wind (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (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.