Talk:Erasmus Darwin Barlow

This article was nominated for deletion on May 24th, 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

stupid stupid tags[edit]

I wish "Concerned Vancouverite" would take his concerns elsewhere and stop trying to delete perfectly relevant articles.

2 comments:

He's notable. stop trying to cast dispersions to the otherwise.
the BMJ article is a reference. It is reliable. Why do you need more?

Flying Fische (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid stupid removal of legitimate legitimate tags[edit]

The BMJ obit offers no evidence that the topic meets WP:PROF. "Why do you need more?" Because WP:ITEXISTS is insufficient for WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would note that the bulk of the article is (unsourced={{refimprove}}) material on his genealogy. The material on his career is (i) rather brief & (ii) does little to establish any particular prominence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re: genealogy. As he's the son of a Baronet, and therefore was in the line of succession to the Baronetcy, the majority of it is in Burke's. As for being notable, fellowship of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Zoological Society of London mark him as notable. I'm sorry that you consider the article to be overly towards genealogy, but since his father, mother, both grandfathers, and a particularly notable great-grandfather all have articles, as do his daughter, son-in-law, have aritlces plus his son (whose article seems to have been replaced by one on yet another unnotable footballer) Flying Fische (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear that being FRCPsych or FZS confer automatic notability, particularly lacking any supporting details on the prominence of his contribution to either field.
This impression is further exacerbated by the emphasis on genealogy rather than achievements -- leading to the impression that he's famous more for who he's related to rather than that he's done. "I'm sorry" but the fact that "his father, mother, both grandfathers, and a particularly notable great-grandfather all have articles, as do his daughter, son-in-law, have aritlces plus his son" isn't particularly relevant. Such information is more appropriate to Darwin family. This is particularly true when the article wanders off into the territory of his daughter's inlaws.
This article remains unsourced on his upbringing and immediate family.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]