Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Saxton Burr


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Harold Saxton Burr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two sources are cited for this biography: one is by the subject, so not independent, the other is 404. His main claim to fame is a conjecture, L-Fields, that is itself barely significant, with no real evidence of discussion outside his own writings. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a lot of 404's if you are willing to check references here and there. HSB's notoriety is simple fact, ; regarding L-Fields, obsolescence does not assimilate to inexistence. --Askedonty (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that nonesxistence does not mean lack of notability (see homeopathy, which is complete bollocks but notable bollocks). However, my concern with this article is that it lacks sources. Feel free to fix that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I thought it would be a fixable 404 - which was a mirage. --Askedonty (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless there is reason to doubt that this is correct, a named professorship (at no less a university than Yale) is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think that with WP:FRINGE topics, that notability is only demonstrated when a reliable mainstream source provides adequate commentary on the fringiness of the work. There were some pretty wacky ideas banded about in the 1930s-1950s period.  It also seems that he did some good but routine work in the 1930s but then went off on a bizarre tangent of L-fields.  He was an anatomist, and apparently more of a teacher of basic anatomy to med students than a cutting-edge researcher.  It isn't really enough that even though have this additional reference I found - this seems to be "wasn't old Burry such a decent chap".  We need decent history of (pseudo)science source(s) and that provide examination from a mainstream perspective.  I am not convinced about the notability of L-fields either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS h-index of 20+ passes WP:Prof. Also passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep Meets WP:PROF regardless of later fringe theories: he did a lot of sound mainstream anatomical research. Widely cited (comparison of H-indexes isn't exact for someone who retired in the 1950s, when there were a lot fewer journals, but his work is frequently cited). Also there's a lot about his wilder theories in various books and articles. Barney the barney barney makes a lot of claims about how he wasn't a proper researcher and didn't do anything of value, but doesn't actually provide any references to support that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have almost always kept Named Professors at Ivy league universities. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, many notable scientists have done work on fringe of science, e.g. Isaac Newton's work on alchemy and Linus Pauling on vitamin C as a cure-all for cancer. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF. The article could use a careful examination of whether it gives undue weight to fringe topics over the subject's mainstream work, but that's a cleanup issue rather than a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - His research, even if controversial, was covered by Time magazine in 1939. HSB's discoveries were also showcased at the National Academy of Sciences (according to Time magazine) -A1candidate (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (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.