Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Leiter


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darryl Leiter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable academic autobiography. Has published papers around fringe theory of MECOs, but fails WP:PROF himself. Verbal  chat  13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This nomination was incomplete; I have added the AfD notice to the article and transcluded it in today's deletion log. I take no position at this point on the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies! Verbal  chat  17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - well-sourced WP:BLP, appears to meet WP:PROF, see Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the GS search -- but I don't see why you conclude it supports keeping the article: his work is not apparently widely cited. Moreover the references in the article are simply to his own papers, which does nothing to support the notion that they have had an impact. Is this the best we have?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing the case for WP:PROF in the Google scholar results, and the coverage of him in the article from The Age cited as a source is trivial (he's merely quoted as "a scientist on the team" and the article makes clear that someone else led the research. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It is not easy to tell just what Leiter's position is--the HCO web site does not include him, but the SAO has many senior staff who are not part of that department, including Schild, and others of similarly great distinction.  His first publication was a letter to Nature in 1969  from Boston College; his latest is 2008, from Harvard/Smithsonian and one listing him at Marwood Astrophysical Research Center, Charlottesville;   his current bio entry in ADS is U Texas., but he is not on their site. Considering the dates, I imagine he is a very senior research associate.  He has been coauthor with a number of very important people in addition to Schild. The degree of responsibility such people have can, in my experience, be very great indeed,regardless of formal position. It is hard to imagine why he should be coauthor with different HCO/ASO people over such a length of time otherwise. Yet none of the papers is heavily cited. Puzzled. Some personal contact with someone who knows about things there might help.DGG (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Nomoskedasticity and David Eppstein. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that he does not meet notability criterion per WP:PROF. Pushes fringe physics, hence his low citation counts even thought he's been around for a while.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per Bearian's search; I appreciate what DGG is saying, but I figure it means one can spend a long time doing work that doesn't have much of an impact, and longevity itself is not notability, nor is seniority necessarily notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (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.