Deletion of Harold Saxton Burr

Comment: Meets  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 articleshttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OjlffVX665EC&lpg=PA252&ots=2akTT-wHkx&dq=Harold%20Burr&pg=PA252#v=onepage&q=Harold%20Burr&f=falsehttp://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/8776038/harold-saxton-burrs-l-fields-lifehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AUoYWVdTUhEC&lpg=PA153&ots=x14ff105Za&dq=Harold%20Burr&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=Harold%20Burr&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNmIuHxe4g0C&lpg=PA359&ots=emJmaAp-VW&dq=Harold%20Burr&pg=PA359#v=onepage&q=Harold%20Burr&f=false
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per .  We have almost always kept Named Professors at Ivy league universities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: I think that with  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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603704/ 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)