Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)

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, I note that the strong argument of DGG is not refuted -- Samir 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)

Paul H. Smith (remote viewer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to serve primarily to promote the business now run by the subject. There are no evidently independent sources (the sources cited are "non-skeptical", i.e. pretty much uncritical). The whole remote viewing subject area is largely a walled garden anyway, most of the articles have no significance except by reference to other articles in the same group. No objective independent sources are cited for this biography, and it contains no evident assertion of encyclopaedic notability. The rank of Major is not generally indicative of a pivotal role in strategic events. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even with the greatest possible credence given to the wider subject matter, there's still no assertion of great notability for this individual. --Dweller 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)I am withdrawing this comment, pending further digging on the subject. --Dweller 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like part of a walled garden promoting a claimed psychic abiility which has a l-o-o-n-g history of being repeatedly discredited by skeptics, and lacking independent and reliable sources. Edison 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Smith is a fairly significant figure on the crankier end of the conspiracy spectrum - he's been covered by Fortean Times, Anomaly TV etc and he's probably the name best associated with the Stargate Project. His books were all pretty big sellers on the lunatic fringe specialist market - it shouldn't be too hard to dig up sources — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• My comments: If one questions what is on my biographical page (full disclosure -- I AM Paul H. Smith), then one has to wonder exactly what counts as factual for Wikepedia. I did not write the article, but the person who did asked me to vet it. Every statement in the article can be shown to be completely true (I made sure of that before allowing the person to post it), and there are NO claims included in it (and that was done intentionally) about the efficacy of remote viewing or my abilities concerning it (though all this in fact can be documented both on and off the Web -- the remark above about remote viewing being discredited is in fact false, though there is no space to argue that here). The comment about the article existing to promote my business is a non sequitur. There is only one line about my business, and it is strictly factual about its founding and present existence. If that is disallowed then you would have to take any mention of Microsoft out of the Bill Gates entry, or delete the entire entry for "promoting" Gate's company. Further, in objecting that no "non-skeptical" sources were cited, there is a question begged: How is a skeptical source relevant to a biography? Are you going to challenge on skeptical grounds my military service, that my book was published in 2005 or the fact that I even exist? The comment about the rank of major is irrelevant. There are plenty of cases of generals who played no lasting role in anything, and on the other hand privates, sergeants and lieutenants who make all the difference (Sergeant Alvin York being one of many examples). What matters is what was actually done, and in that category I count at least as much as several other remote viewing-related notables who have undisputed pages on Wikepedia. As a final note, I have thus far only published one book, and it was not a best-seller; however it WAS selected as the Book Bonus Feature and Editor's Choice for the March 2006 issue of Reader's Digest...and yes, that can easily be verified. -- rviewer 71.145.166.155 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I suggest the article, if kept, be renamed to Paul H. Smith, as there is no neeed to disambiguate it. - Nabla 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment How about Paul Smith (utter fraud and charlatan) to avoid any confusion of his claims with anything approaching reality? Nick mallory 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like he's notable, but the article is utterly imbalanced. --Dweller 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment agree with dropping the disputed claim that he has "remote viewing" powers from the title, just as we have Jeanne Dixon rather than Jeanne Dixon (psychic). As for "remote viewing" being discredited, the only reliable source cited, from CBS News, says "After 20 years and $20 million, the CIA dropped the program in 1995, concluding that Stargate "has not been shown to have any value in intelligence operations." That CBS feature story is in no way a balanced scientific look at the claims. Edison 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The CBS story was quoting the official government report which noted that remote viewing was useless. I used that example because the media report gave 'both sides of the story' as they always do. If remote viewing isn't hooey I'm sure Edison can quote all the peer reviewed scientific papers which argue for the validity of it here or in the article. It would be such an amazingly useful skill that I imagine Nature or Scientific American is full of such research. There's also the one million dollar Randi prize for demonstrating this sort of skill, which I'm sure Mr Smith is going to pick up any day now, just as soon as he gets round to it. Nick mallory 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Even if I stick my neck out, violate NPOV and declare that I for one am fairly certain Remote Viewing is a steaming heap of bullshit, that's neither here nor there; if the US government were willing to throw money at something so patently loopy, that makes it more notable not less. We have plenty of articles on things I don't believe — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be an article on remote viewing, so long as it points out that remote viewing is bollocks, but as I was reading about remote viewing to review what I thought about this article it was noticable that Mr Smith's name didn't come up at all. He didn't seem to play a major role in project Stargate, so I don't see how he's notable for that. We don't hold marines who die in battle notable simply for participating in a war, so why is a guy who says he played what seems a very minor role in a small failed project notable? 124.176.67.208 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject seems to be notable given the cited references. The article does need some work, including cleaning out the spam in the External links section, but that does not mean the article should be deleted. --ElKevbo 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are three sources listed. one is by the subject of the article, one is a book for which I can find no published reviews, and the third is CBS news, but it mentions Smith only in passing. Thus it fails the standard criteria of two independent non trivial sources. "Remote viewing" is notable, as a successful work of the imagination, but that does not mean that everyone --or anyone--connected with it is individually notable. DGG 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have read the first two sources listed: the Smith and Schnabel books. In addition to the assuredly non-skeptical material in Smith's book, they both also describe verifiable historical information associated with the U.S. military-sponsored foray into remote viewing for intelligence. It's been a couple years since I've read his book, but Schnabel was a science writer for Newsweek magazine. In the book he represents himself as attempting to be objective and beginning research for the book as an independent skeptic. He refers to Smith 14 times in The Remote Viewers (Amazon has the index). In it, Schnabel characterizes Smith as an instructor in (and the de facto historian of) the INSCOM/DIA remote viewing program, as well as writer of the Ft. Meade remote viewing unit's "how to do coordinate remote viewing by the numbers" army training manual (not the actual title). Smith's Reading the Enemy's Mind -curiously titled in that there is little if any reference to purported mind reading- is consistent with Schnabel's account, though detailing a narrower timeframe and from an obviously non-independent perspective. I'm not sure what constitutes "non trivial" in this arena, but I think it is not unreasonable to call Schnabel's book "independent," and to say that it portrays Smith as a noteworthy figure in the military's remote viewing program. So, there's one . . .Cal Jimenez 09:23, 2 May 2007 (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.