Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H. Paul Shuch

H. Paul Shuch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, specifically does not meet notability for academics, which he is. He is also an engineer, and active in the SETI movement and it may be he meets notability there. If your opinion is keep, please give guidance as to which parts of the article to keep and what to trim, as this has WP:COI, autobiography, and other issues. It is currently listed at the COI noticeboard here. As EdJohnston wrote: Shuch tells a good story but it is hard to find articles that actually write about him. Suppose we had to build his entire article out of direct quotes about him from other publications, how large would it be? Thanks for your input. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Very light on reliable sources. Weak delete due to probably not meeting WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Shuch himself has recently added sources to improve the article Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Article subject is notable enough to warrant an article and there are enough reliable sources. I'd suggest pruning the non-notable sections (e.g. Musical Influences) Luksuh 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — The individual clearly exists. If you have problems with the manner in which the article is written, deletion is not the appropriate means to remedy those issues. Fix it yourself, or leave it alone so someone else can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the individual in question does not exist. The issue is whether he is notable and on what grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue most certainly is not whether he is "notable", because "notability" is irrelevant--it is both arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion for inclusion of an article on the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A radical and very unconventional view on Wikipedia inclusion standards, but thank you for articulating it clearly. If you feel that way, you should take it up at the talk page for WP:N and try to have it modified or even deleted. But for now we have to respect previously established consensus and follow the existing notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. We are not bound by precedent at all. We are expected to judge each case on its merits. There are no hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia. The "policies" merely reflect what has been done in the past; they are not rules to dictate what happens in the future. This is where you change consensus, and when that happens, the "policy" pages are updated to reflect that. Your suggestion is completely backwards, then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep using this argument that subjects of articles exist. That is not considered sufficient by longstanding consensus. Please try to use stronger, more convincing arguments, and avoid attacking other editors in the process. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of attacking others when I have not done so. Furthermore, my arguments are plenty strong and valid. That others disagree with them does not change that fact. I am not obligated to think like everyone else. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "A retired engineering professor, H. Paul Shuch is the aerospace engineer credited with designing the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver."^[1]. Sounds notable enough to me. Article could do with some cleanup though. -- Naerii 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Any COI issues will be best resolved by the participation of other editors rather than deletion. AFD is not punishment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable perhaps in several different respect. Kurt, i am not sure how useful it is to give your much expanded definition here in discussing this article--it is hardly needed & might even give the incorrect impression that there is no basis for inclusion otherwise. There are better places for general policy advocacy. Seems rather clear that the only real problem with this particular article is with the COI that has made itself evident in the manner of writing, which is fixable enough. We do not have to build the article out of direct quotes, we can use self published sources for uncontroversial routine information. DGG (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No notability concerns, article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough info to justify notability under WP:PROF. The awards/honors like being a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and being an elected member of the International Academy of Astronautics are probably sufficient in this regard. More awards, some of them academic, are listed at the SETI League website, [2]. The claim to being "credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver" also appears to be verifiable and would go some way towards satisfying WP:PROF as well. I must admit that I had trouble with finding sufficient references to his scholarly work via GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks, where very few hits came up, and this worries me a bit. He might also qualify under WP:BIO because of his SETI involvement and public advocacy for SETI. I would say that the article needs a serious clean-up and a reduction in size. There are lots of personal details that are both unverifiable and of marginal relevance to his claim to notability. E.g.: "His earliest memories as a toddler include Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, to which his father told him bedtime stories. He began the obligatory piano lessons at age 5, continuing until he fell in love with the violin at age 11." Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Unsure. On closer inspection, the British Interplanetary Society is not really a scholarly society, but more of a public advocacy group (as the aticle British Interplanetary Society says, Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer, used to be its Chairman. Given that I was unable to find substantial evidence of academic notability in terms of citations in scholarly articles and books, I do not see enough data to justify notability under WP:PROF. It is possible that notability might be established on other grounds, per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Weak Keep. I did a GoogleNews (all dates) search for Shuch SETI and got 67 hits[3] at least 50 of which appear to be related to the subject of the article containing nontrivial coverage. The same search of GoogleBooks gives 51 hits[4] (most are false positives but at least 20 or so appear to be related to the subject). This popular media and books coverage appears to be enough to satisfy WP:BIO as a notable public activist. Nsk92 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (after ec) I am not trying to punish Shuch for COI editing. Here are my explicit concerns. The nutshell at WP:NN says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Shuch himself has made the vast majority of the edits to his article, so it seems especially important to have relaible sources backing up his claims. He has been made aware of this and has had a few weeks to add more reliable sources.
  So what is he notable for? The article's "Overview" starts with Shuch, also known as "Dr. SETI", an aerospace engineer and microwave technologist credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver[1] [2],... Now, that sounds very notable, but what are the "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" cited here? A patent? An article or textbook on or published history of satellite TV? No, reference 1 is a book on "Deploying License-free Wireless Wide-area Networks" and the claim is given in a bio of Shuch, who is one of the book's technical reviewers. The book's author is Shuch's "former student, former employee, fellow radio amateur, and lieflong friend." Does this seem like a "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? The second reference is to a history page on a 1999 website for "Real-World Technology Ltd: The UK's Set-Top Box Tuner Specialist". Even there it does not quite match the claim made in the article, but rather says H Paul Shuch had designed microstrip low-noise converters for the radio amateur 2.3, 3.4 and 5.6 GHz bands, and it was a small step to adapt them to cover the 4 GHz satellite downlink band.
  As I see it, Shuch could be notable for four things he has done: 1) professor, 2) engineer, 3) SETI work, and 4) filk singing. 1) Professor is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and he does not seem to meet the standard that "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" - the article does not say that he has even been tenured anywhere, for example. 2) Engineer and 3) SETI seem to fall under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals and the engineering work notability I adressed above. As for SETI work, the organization he was director of does not (yet) have a Wikipedia article on it. As for filk singing and WP:MUSIC, not notable. He has one ref in the whole music section, which attributes the cited quote back to Shuch himself: But Shuch would rather call himself a cross between Carl Sagan and Tom Lehrer.
  I agree with Kurt Weber - Shuch exists, as do over 6 billion other people. I do not doubt that he has done the things the article claims. As I see it (and as I said above) if he is notable it is for his engineering and/or SETI work (there are lots of retired adjunct / visiting professors out there and many filk singers too). I am not an expert on his fields of engineering or SETI and it may well be that he is notable, but I just wanted to state my concerns more explicitly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for tracking down the references given in the article to justify the claim that he is "credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver". Per your research, the references given either do not qualify as independent reliable sources (the first reference) or do not explicitly back up the claim (the second reference). WP:PROF is not just for professors but for academics in general. Many academics work in the industry/non-profits/government etc rather than in universities. I was basing my vote primarily on the evidence of academic honors and awards that he (claims to) have received, such as being a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and being an elected member of the International Academy of Astronautics. The SETI League website lists some others, such as the Hertz Foundation Fellowship in the Applied Physical Sciences (In view of the experience with the satellite TV claim all these would need to be verified). Generally, being an elected member of an international scholarly society is a good indicator of academic notability, provided the society itself is well-established and reputable. This would seem to be enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF. I do still have some doubts, since, as I said, I did not find much via GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches under his name. So I am a bit on the fence about this one. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed my vote to Unsure; see my comments above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe the correct thing to do here is to create a WP entry for SETI League and merge this article there. After all, his main claim to fame does seem to be his SETI activities. I did a GoogleNews search (all dates) for "SETI League" and got 74 hits. [5] Some of them are rather interesting in how they characterize the SETI Leage and Shuch himself, e.g. this, from "New Scientist"[6]:"Paul Shuch, director of an organisation of amateur SETI enthusiasts called the SETI League, based in New Jersey, believes that the signal must have come ...". This tells me that the popular press citations related to Shuch do not really go towards proving his notability per WP:PROF, since his opinion is cited not as that of a scientific expert but rather, as a leader of an organisation of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly suggest an article on SETI league, but I think this article will hold up in addition. Popular pre3ss citations are perfectly usable for an academic--they dont prove academic notability, but they do prove notability. It's well established that an academic who meets the same general criteria for notability in the eye of the general public can be notable as such. the special rues are to deal with the situation that the general eye of the pubic press does not cover them much. DGG (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, popular press citations may be used as an indicator of academic notability per WP:PROF, but only if they involve citing his opinions as a scientific expert on a particular subject (or articles about him and his scientific accomplishments). That does not seem to be the case here since he is quoted not as a scientific expert but as a leader of a group of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". These kinds of citations would go towards general notability under WP:BIO as a public activist for a particular cause, but it is not clear to me if the number and depth of such newsarticle citations related to Shuch are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's the point, is he notable as 'a leader of a group of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". ' I think we agree that it is possible for someone, academic or not, to be notable a leader of such a group. To me, being talked about as such in New Scientist is quite enough to show it. DGG (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (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.