Deletion of Erasmus Darwin Barlow

Comment: obviously.  This is another stupid nomination of a perfectly fine article. I do not see why someone who happens to have notable relatives needs to have additional notability in order to fulfil you liberal idealism that someone can only gain notability through their own actions.  But of course, the article is going to mention the relatives!  But look, he was a Fellow of both the Zoological Society of London '''AND''' the Royal College of Psychiatrists.  There is an article on each and every one of the other secretaries of the Zoological Society of London; secretary is a pretty significant position within that organisation.  Furthermore, the  (and  for that matter) is satisfied by an obituary in the ''BMJ''.  I'd hardly think that the ''BMJ'' - that is the journal of the British Medical Association, which is read by probably most of the physicians in the country, and many outside, would publish an obituary of someone that they did not consider to have contributed to medicine.  Have you read the BMJ article?  If not, how can you assert via the liberal use of innuendo that he has no significance? He also appears, btw, in ''Who's Who in Finance and Industry'' (1963 edn) (and I strongly suspect if you look at a copy of Debrett's from the same period, you'll find him there too, not that looking things up a common past-time amongst Wikipedia hacks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: per sources presented in discussion above and in article, sufficient in aggregate to render the subject notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: passes  per Carcharoth's recap of the sources. The encyclopedia is better with this information than without it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails  criteria #3 (:Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London does not demonstrate that organisation is "highly selective", at least in terms of zoological contribution -- selectivity on social standing may be another issue, also it appears to be a charitable/conservation society, rather than an principally-academic one), #6 (was only the secretary of the ZSC, not the president, and it's charitable-not-academic, per above) #7 (appointments are not contributions -- and those listed are generally more administrative than research-orientated). Also fails 'General notes': "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I would further note that the article fails to articulate ''any specific contribution to either psychiatry or zoology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: There is not one word about anything Barlow may have contributed to any academic field.  Google scholar throws up nothing of significance http://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Erasmus%20Darwin%20Barlow%22&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws.  The genealogical material is irrelevant, since notability is .  The rest of the article reads like a CV, with much of it in fact being nothing more than a  from the BMJ obituary http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7544/798.2/suppl/DC1.  For Wikipedia purposes, notability is supposed to be indicated by a wealth of , not just a reference or two to establish a tenuous toehold for .  Where is the  for his scholarly contributions that should have been accumulating throughout his lifetime?  Instead of that wealth of information, the only thing we have is his obituary--in other words, he made no impact at all apart from dying.  Certainly the intent and spirit of  and  are that notability is a result of a lifetime of accomplishments that have been noted consistently through --and not simply an occasion for a wikilawerying toehold for having "satisfied" one of a dozen requirements for .  Finally, it should be noted that the notability standards of Wikipedia are '''not the same''' as what might pass for notability or significance in the outside world.  For instance, the world might consider him notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin.  But it takes a lot more than that to satisfy WP guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:COPYVIO||WP:RS||WP:PROF||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:PROF)