Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus Darwin Barlow


 * 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    Keep. There is a consensus below that the sources available are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Erasmus Darwin Barlow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although the person lived and his life was documented the article does not assert his notability. Most of the information is about his relations, and the rest about his professional associations. There is nothing about what he did in his life to make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. BigJim707 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per multiple Notability_(academics), specifically no.3 ("The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)") as FZS, no. 6 ("The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Secretary of ZSL, no. 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") vice chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, chairman of Cambridge Instrument Co Ltd. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 WP:GNG (and WP:RS 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). Flying Fische (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is not one word about anything Barlow may have contributed to any academic field.  Google scholar throws up nothing of significance .  The genealogical material is irrelevant, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.  The rest of the article reads like a CV, with much of it in fact being nothing more than a WP:COPYVIO from the BMJ obituary .  For Wikipedia purposes, notability is supposed to be indicated by a wealth of WP:RS, not just a reference or two to establish a tenuous toehold for WP:PROF.  Where is the WP:RS 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 WP:N and WP:BIO are that notability is a result of a lifetime of accomplishments that have been noted consistently through WP:RS--and not simply an occasion for a wikilawerying toehold for having "satisfied" one of a dozen requirements for WP:PROF.  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. Qworty (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability_(academics) states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable" and I note that he meets three. This is not Wikilawyering, this is a clear application of a clear guideline.  If you disagree with the guideline, get a consensus to overturn it.  Oh, and no-one is suggesting that he is "notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin", so why bring it up?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline you yourself cite clearly states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, AS SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH RELIABLE SOURCES" (emphasis mine).  Where are the WP:RS substantiating notability here?  And please note that sources is a plural. Qworty (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * user:Qworty has basically been going around trying to get me permablocked, and delete any valid contributions for no apparent reason. Perhaps he should try doing something useful for a change. Flying Fische (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An obituary in the British Medical Journal is a reliable source. The ZSL is a reliable source for its own activities.  The Spectator is a reliable source.  Plural.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:PROF 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being charitable is a legal status perfectly compatible with being academic or scholarly. The ZSL is a scientific research organisation as well, through its division The Institute of Zoology.  The Secretary is effectively the CEO of the organisation, he doesn't just open the post.  Why on earth do you think social standing is the criterion for Fellowship?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is primarily a conservation charity NOT a scholarly society. That it has a research division DOES NOT make it "a scientific research organisation". Most national governments also have scientific research organisations -- but that does not make national governments a scientific research organisation themselves. Peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London. ("Why on earth" would you ask such a stupid question without having done so?) It is absolutely littered with titled gentlemen of little scientific prominence. No, the president of a club or company is the CEO, the club or company secretary is concerned with administrative/procedural/regulatory compliance, not club/company direction. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I did peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London, and it is uncivil of you to assume that I had not, and to call me stupid for not, as you wrongly guessed, having done so. The "litter" of titled gentlemen consists of


 * Herbrand Russell, 11th Duke of Bedford - instrumental in saving the milu (or Père David's deer)
 * Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon - gained distinction as an ornithologist
 * Thomas Powys, 4th Baron Lilford - ornithologist
 * Robert Edward Fiennes-Clinton, 19th Earl of Lincoln - BLP
 * Sir William McAlpine, 6th Baronet - BLP
 * John Peyton, Baron Peyton of Yeovil - treasurer of ZSL
 * Arthur Hay, 9th Marquess of Tweeddale - ornithologist, taxonym Walden
 * Clive Wigram, 1st Baron Wigram - ?
 * Solly Zuckerman, Baron Zuckerman - FRS, ennobled for services to science
 * So here we have 9 out of 101 titled, two BLP whom I won't discuss, one with no recorded scientific contribution, four with some scientific credibility and one actually ennobled for services to science. Please do not assume that having a title makes it impossible to also be a scientist.
 * Now let's turn to the nature of ZSL. That it has a research division makes it an organisation that engages in scientific research: "Our scientists in the laboratory and field, animal management teams at both zoos and our veterinarians contribute wide-ranging skills and experience to both practical conservation and the scientific research that underpins this work." "ZSL's Institute of Zoology offers research training through PhD studentships, and hosts undergraduate and masters level research projects conducted as part of our own MSc courses and courses at other institutions." "Lord Zuckerman, then Secretary of ZSL, raised funds from two medical foundations to found laboratories where scientists would be employed by ZSL and undertake research." "The Institute of Zoology is a world renowned research centre working at the cutting edge of conservation biology, specialising in scientific issues relevant to preserving animal species and their habitats."
 * Finally, the secretary. From the Independent's obituary of Sir Barry Cross, Secretary 1988-1992: The post of secretary is honorary and under the society's constitution carries the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the society's affairs. It is in effect the chief executive post without either the remuneration or the trappings of high office to go with it.
 * You may wish to reconsider some of your remarks above. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Bedford: conservation NOT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (my whole point above), Grey: ornothology was only a hobby, and the (rather thin) material on that aspect of his life (which makes no mention of serious scientific research) is wholly unsourced -- I would therefore take the 'distinction' with a touch of salt, Powys: again no indication of significant scientific research (just a large aviary, and some books of drawings), Fiennes-Clinton: no scientific involvement mentioned, McAlpine: no scientific involvement mentioned, Peyton: no scientific involvement mentioned, Hay: collected specimens & and a book privately published, but again no indication of significant scientific research, Wigram: no scientific involvement mentioned. (ii)You are making a wholly illogical claim: that Y possesses X does not make Y X. That I possess two hands does not make me a hand. That the US Government possesses an army does not make it an army. And so it follows that the ZSL possesses a division that happens to be a "scientific research organisation" DOES NOT MAKE THE ZSL ITSELF' a "scientific research organisation". (iii) The description of secretary you have given would appear to equate to Chief operating officer, who typically reports to the CEO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue about Fellows is moot, as it appears I was wrong about that status.
 * The issue about conservation: the ZSL's own words quoted above make it clear that as an organisation it regards itself as doing scientific research as an integral part of its mission.
 * The issue about Secretary: I have provided a reliable source which supports my exact words.
 * I don't see what more I can say. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was asked on my talk page by User:Flying Fische to have a look at this article. I wouldn't normally respond to a note like this, but this is the sort of article and AfD I would work on if I had happened to notice it, so I am going to take a look at this, while disclosing here the reason I became aware of the article and the deletion discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having now looked at this, my thoughts so far are:
 * (1) The two main notable aspects (so far) are having an obituary published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and being Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (this is, as Sergeant Cribb points out, one of the main positions at the ZSL, the other being President). Having said that, he doesn't have an entry in "Who was Who", so he isn't that notable.
 * (2) The article does need a bit of rewriting to move away from the language used in the BMJ obituary and to reduce the reliance on genealogical material from Burke's. Though repeating the same facts as presented in those two sources will be unavoidable to some extent, some more rephrasing would be best here, as well as bringing in some other sources. The phrase "enthusiastic founding member" in particular is something that needs to be put in quotation marks.
 * (3) There are some more sources if you search Google Scholar and Google Books carefully, but not too much there. It would help to locate another obituary if any others were published. I did find his marriage mentioned in The Times (The Times, Friday, Apr 08, 1938; pg. 19; Issue 47964; col C), plus a radio programme called 'The Dangers of Health' that he presented in 1956 (The Times, Saturday, Aug 11, 1956; pg. 4; Issue 53607; col D). The Times also mentions a couple of the companies he was involved with, such as the engineering company George Kent and Dataprep (The Times, Thursday, Sep 04, 1969; pg. 18; Issue 57656; col F). There is also a picture of Erasmus Barlow in a fairly long article about the takeover of Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company in 1968 (The Times, Friday, Jun 21, 1968; pg. 29; Issue 57283; col D). It seems this Erasmus Darwin was also Master (in around 1976-77) of the Worshipful Company of Scientific Instrument Makers, one of those guilds you get in London that holds dinners (The Times, Saturday, Jun 04, 1977; pg. 16; Issue 60021; col D). There is also an article in The Times that says it was one Erasmus Barlow (consultant psychiatrist at St Thomas' Hospital, London) who examined Harold Challenor and gave evidence about his condition at the Challenor Inquiry (The Times, Wednesday, Oct 28, 1964; pg. 7; Issue 56154; col D). He also gave a lecture at the Royal Institute of Philosophy on 12 February 1958 titled 'The Validity of Hallucinations' (The Times, Wednesday, Feb 12, 1958; pg. 9; Issue 54073; col A). There are also some hits on PubMed, and another picture of him in Medical science and technology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School: the first 50 years, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL VOLUME 291 21-28 DECEMBER 1985, pp.1771-1779. The picture is figure 5 on page 1773 and is from 1945. All a bit scattered, but my view is that the existence of at least one obituary is sufficient to justify bringing the disparate threads together (if there was no obituary, that would be a different story).
 * So as I said, all in all, I think there is enough here for an article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think I need to withdraw my argument based on FZSL. Neither Hrafn nor I seem to have spotted this page which suggests that Fellowship is not as prestigious as I has thought.  My comments on the position of Secretary stand.  So, we may be down to two of the criteria for notability.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are withdrawing your argument, please place strike-out print over the text, so that we'll know exactly which comments you are withdrawing. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the suggestion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the issue is that he was the Secretary of the Zoological Society, not "just" a Fellow. Flying Fische (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So what if he was the secretary of this group? Did he do anything notable as secretary, according to WP:RS?  No evidence has ever been presented that he did. Qworty (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Secretary is an important position. It is he who basically chairs the Committee that runs the Society.  We have articles on all of the other Secretaries of the society, because they have all been notable: Nicholas Aylward Vigors (1826–1833); Edward Turner Bennett (1833–1836); William Yarrell (1836–1838); John Barlow (1838–1840); William Ogilby (1840–1847); David William Mitchell (1847–1859); Philip Lutley Sclater (1859–1902); William Lutley Sclater (1903); Peter Chalmers Mitchell (1903–1935); Julian Huxley (1935–1942); Sheffield Airey Neave (1942–1952); Viscount Chaplin (1952–1955); Solly Zuckerman (1955–1977); Ronald Henderson Hedley (1977–1980); John Guest Phillips (1982–1984) Richard M. Laws (1984–1988); Barry Albert Cross (1988–1992); R. McNeill Alexander (1992–1999); Paul H. Harvey (2000–present).  This is demonstrates that the position is a significant position adopted by those seeking to further their careers (such people do not take on such roles if they are not personally worthwhile).  Chairing a committee, albeit a powerful one, probably isn't very interesting in itself, but interestingness isn't a criterion.  Before you say it, this is not "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", or "WP:NOTINHERITED". That, Plus the medical career, plus the business career, plus the family background ("WP:NOTINHERITED" is clearly nonsense) make him four times notable. 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources presented in discussion above and in article, sufficient in aggregate to render the subject notable per WP:GNG. Chester Markel (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm having difficulty finding good sources about him other than the BMJ obit, but I think that one may be enough by itself. Most of the argument above seems to boil down to "he doesn't pass this one special case, therefore he's not notable" which is obviously not good logic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article asserts notability, a number of important associations, and individual notability looks reasonably solid. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obits suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG per Carcharoth's recap of the sources. The encyclopedia is better with this information than without it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep BMJ obituary and a fellow of some well renowned organisations, although the article could do with some detail on his research papers. -- wintonian  talk  04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carcharoth. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.