Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus Darwin Barlow
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
— User:Flying, 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)