Talk:Erasmus Darwin Barlow

stupid stupid tags

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

2 comments:

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

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

Stupid stupid removal of legitimate legitimate tags

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)

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)

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all have articles, as do his daughter, son-in-law, have aritlces plus his son (whose article seems to have been replaced by one on yet another unnotable footballer) Flying Fische (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. This article remains unsourced on his upbringing and immediate family.

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