Talk:Leo J. Baranski

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo J. Baranski article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Be more specific

I noticed some feedback mentioning that this essay might be seen as original research or argumentative, but I’ve made sure to include sources for all the information. It's also been mentioned that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's general or academic notability guidelines, but I believe this person is just as remarkable as any other regularly notable scientist from that time. Could you point out exactly which parts you think need improvement? I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks!Milamianno22 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milamianno22, there are many issues here:

Most critical, please note the contentious topic tag at the top, and make sure that you have read that. Because of the area where he worked special rules apply.
There is no indication that he passes the academic criteria for notability WP:NPROF. In a google search for his publications at [here] there are almost no citations to his work. For academics we look for many (hundreds typically) publications with a significant h-factor of 40 or more, and with some publications cited more than 500 times. (Those are approximate numbers, they vary with field.)
Large amounts of the page have no sources, or the sources are only asides about him, not in depth. Some do not verify the statements they are used to support.
There is no substantial coverage of his books such as favorable reviews. Hence I do not see how he qualifies under WP:NAUTHOR.
The only coverage of him that I can see is in unconventional/conspiracy theory blogs. I am dubious about that qualifying for general notability WP:GNG.

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., I have posted to WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to get additional input about his notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milamianno22 17:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Baranski worked in his field in the 1950s-1970s, so his work isn’t easy to find online, which isn’t unusual for scientists from that era. Much of their recognition comes from sources like academic journals or archives that haven’t been digitized. Based on the journals from the institutions he was associated with, it’s clear he was highly regarded in his field. The article doesn’t claim Baranski’s work is right or wrong; it’s purely intended to be informative. There are also plenty of Wikipedia pages about scientists with notability criteria that seem less stringent, making his case worth considering.