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, as follows:

Working back up from the bottom and looking at the point-by-point on "academics"...

As such, the rough consens to delete appears to be in line with policy.

With respect to the information provided by User:Dr Fil...


Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Hill

[edit]
Paul R. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A punt from Wikipedia:FTN#Paul_R._Hill. People trying to find independent, third-party, reliable sources for this biography have been unsuccessful. This would seem to indicate the guy fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Do you have some additional verification to justify that Hill's was a "lifetime spent on the cutting edge of research and development", he was thought to be "pioneering", and that his career and views were the subject of serious, in depth coverage by mainstream sources? I'm asking because, in the links you gave, I only see Hills name mentioned in passing among literally dozens of other, equally obscure employees. Also the article seems to be functioning as somewhat of a coatrack for Hill's views on UFOs, which weren't given much attention at all by mainstream reviewers, and as a result would not warrant any degree of coverage here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Hill's views on UFOs were your "coatrack" or rationale for wholesale deletion of the article, something for which you have never provided a decent reason for, other than it personally rubbed you the wrong way, which is totally irrelevant. As for "mainstream sources", how about all the NASA/NACA publications of Hill's? I will continue to look for others (though I doubt you will ever consider them adequate--the moving goalpost thing). For some of his pioneering research, maybe you should have read the article first before deleting it. From the article, here were some of his major R&D contributions in the field:
==Sample personal research involvement==
  • P-47 aerodynamic design: Early in World War II, personally did aerodynamic prototype design and wind tunnel testing of P-47 Thunderbolt fighter and long-range bomber escort plane.
  • Ram-Jet design: Wrote first published NACA report on supersonic Ram-Jet engine theory. Subsequently set up and supervised ram-jet research and flight programs at NACA’s research facility at Wallops Island.
  • Wind tunnel design: Complete design responsibility for first supersonic wind tunnel in the United States operating at Mach 2 at full supersonic temperature. Design responsibility of NACA’s Flutter Research Tunnel, the first tunnel to use denser freon gas rather than air and in which high heat generated had to be removed by refrigeration.
  • Flying platform research: First kinesthetically-controlled “flying platform” research program, 1950-1953. Eventually led to the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) design. (Hill also applied research to analysis of UFO dynamical performance, such as observed wobble and falling-leaf motion.)
  • Spherical solid-fuel motors: Initiation of research on spherical solid fuel motors.
  • Space station technology: Initiation of space station research in the 1960s in inflatable and other self-erecting space structures, regenerative life-supports systems, closed environmental chambers for life-support systems tests, laboratory for study of direct gyroscopic control.
  • Lunar low-gravity simulation: Invention along with David Thomas of lunar low-gravity simulation for lunar transport-flyer research; directed
Dr Fil (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at each of our articles on those subjects, and I don't see Hill mentioned, which would be odd if he indeed played a notable role in their development. There are hundreds of aerospace engineers who worked on such programs who have equally diverse resumes, however that doesn't qualify them as particularly notable and deserving of their own Wikipedia article. Are there any mainstream publications or authors that have written works specifically devoted to Hill? A biography of his life or a review of his work? Perhaps there was an obituary published in a major newspaper or magazine? I'm just not seeing the sources that would indicate the high degree of notability you feel he possesses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons for deletion keep changing as the former ones get proven bogus. You were first questioning whether Hill was even a research aerospace engineer for NACA/NASA, and here under reasons for deletion claimed literally no independent, 3rd party references existed. Your latest argument seems to be that Wikipedia is allegedly the world's most comprehensive, accurate, and authoritative source of information. If it isn't currently written up in Wikipedia, it just isn't worth mentioning. Of course, we all know that isn’t true. Like any encyclopedia, it can’t go into great depth on much of the subject matter. Thus you are misleading the readers again with your argument that Hill isn’t notable or he would have been mentioned in the Wiki articles on the research he was involved in. The Wiki article on ramjets doesn't even include a section on development in the U.S. It briefly mentions Naval research but not NACA research at the time, which Hill headed. There is no article on the history of flying platforms. Maybe that explains why Hill isn't mentioned. The space station article doesn't discuss early research, which Hill headed at NACA on a rotating, inflatable space station. The article on rotating wheel space stations is little more than a stub article, again not detailing research. Articles on wind tunnels, supersonic wind tunnels, and hypersonic wind tunnels generally discuss principles and do NOT have comprehensive histories, particularly for later supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnels, which Hill was deeply involved in. You won’t find a single name of one person involved with these listed in these Wiki articles.
Wiki basic guidelines on notability of academics, research scientists & engineers, etc. are that they are considered notable in their field, i.e., widely respected by colleagues, did pioneering research, were influential in their field, etc. It does NOT require that their work or life be written up in detail. The point here in the Wiki guidelines is that many people in research fields who do significant work are largely unknown outside of their fields and not rock stars who may be extensively written up. I am, however, trying to get Hill’s writeup in “Who’s Who in Technology”, but it will be several days before it can be retrieved from library storage.
Here is one recent example of where Hill is noted as being highly respected in his field of aerodynamics, in fact one of the leading experts of his day. (I have previously provided a reference where Edward J. Ruppelt of Project Blue Book referred to Hill as "a very famous aerodynamicist" and "high-ranking civilian scientist" for NACA.) Hill is mentioned twice (pp. 31, 45-46) in Dr. Robert F. Brodsky’s 2006 memoir “On the Cutting Edge”, with Brodsky devoting about half a page to Hill’s contributions in his slim 200 page book. Hill was on a specially-assembled advisory panel of “great men” aerodynamicist advising Sandia Labs physicist like Brodsky in the early 1950s why their atom bomb fin designs were breaking. Besides Hill (“Chief of NACA’s Pilotless Aircraft Division”), the “great men” Brodsky names are Jack Northrop (of course, founder of Northrop Aircraft), George Schairer (Chief of aerodynamics at Boeing), Ira H. Abbott (“a legendary engineer”), Ed Heinemann (Chief engineer Douglas Aircraft), Dr. Alex Charters (“a famous ballistician”), Al Sibilia (Vought aircraft chief of aerodynamics), Dr. Charles Poor (Chief Scientist Army’s Ballisic Research Laboratory), and “several other distinguished engineers”. Of the group, it was Hill and Charters whom Brodsky labels the “heroes” who quickly figured out what was going wrong, though Brodsky says at the time they were ignored. It wasn’t until a year later that the Sandia scientists realized they were right. “Both experts were correct, but they were too far ahead of us technically. This was not surprising, since they were the only ones present with ballistic-type experience.” You’ll notice that of these other “great men”, only three have Wikipedia bios and four do NOT. I myself had only heard of Northrop. That doesn’t some how prove they weren’t “notable” in their fields, only that nobody has written about them on Wikipedia. They were certainly considered very notable in their day, or they wouldn’t have been selected for this high-level advisory panel. Brodsky makes this very clear. (Incidentally, Brodsky also doesn’t have a Wiki bio either, despite being considered another aerospace pioneer, including well-publicized research on a space station “lifeboat”. You also won’t find that mentioned in the Wiki articles on space stations either, so obviously he too must not be “notable.”)
Others of comparable “notability” to Hill have bios on Wikipedia. One example is Charles H. Zimmerman. He is primarily noted as performing the first flying platform research at Langley 1950-1953. The research literally would never have gotten off the ground without Hill. Hill championed the research, as noted in a national newspaper article I have already cited, in fact was in charge of it. They co-authored NACA technical reports, which I have cited here. Hill was at least Zimmerman's coequal in that research. If Zimmerman is "notable" for that alone, so is Hill.
Hill had a better or at least equal resumé and did at least as important or more important work than many listed and bio’ed over on List of aerospace engineers. (Like any similar Wikipedia list, it is hardly exhaustive. Just because someone isn’t listed there doesn’t mean they aren’t somehow noteworthy.) Just one example, check out Ron Ayers. (This is no criticism of Ayers BTW. Nor is he special. I started with “A” and he was the first one with a similar bio to Hill’s.) Like Hill, he was an early R&D aerodynamicist. His main listed "notability" in the Wiki article was for “aerodynamics of the land speed record-holding vehicle, ThrustSSC.” Well, I guess that has some minor notability, but is it really that important in the history of aeronautical engineering, in contrast to say Hill’s ramjet or flying platform/LEM or inflatable space habitat work for Langley Research Labs? Ayers also worked on design of a post-war British nuclear bomber, much like Hill designed the aerodynamics of the P-47 Thunderbolt. In my judgment, the P-47 was the more important historically. After the War, like Hill, Ayers worked in missile and aerodynamic research; like Hill headed up some departments. The total listed source material for this are two short bios on Ayers, one by himself, and an interview with Ayers on the ThrustSSC web page, thus basically self-sourced and NOT independent, disinterested, source material. Besides the lack of what constitutes proper Wiki “reliability” sourcing, what exactly makes Ayers more notable than his many colleagues who he worked with, or other department heads like himself? Yet you are putting the exact same knocks on Hill as suitable justifications to delete the article. In what way is Ron Ayers deserving of “notability” and a bio but not Hill? Why isn’t there a similar push to delete Ayers? I see a double standard at work here, and it is clearly related to the labeling here of Hill as a “crank” and “fringe” for daring to write a book analyzing possible UFO physics and engineering. Dr Fil (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think as long as it is made clear that these comments on UFOs were made by Hill, there is no reason to delete them. Many things in any of our lives are impossible to verify through a second source, and many biographies on people are necessarily based on their own autobiographical information. E.g., astronomer Clyde Tombaugh reported six UFO sightings, only one of which he officially reported. Are we supposed to never mention what Tombaugh said because there is no independent way to verify the information? Hill, like Tombaugh, did report one of his UFO sightings and has a second source already included in the article, Cpt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the USAF's public UFO investigation in the early 1950s. Ruppelt also mentioned Hill's notability in his day: "While discussing the huge 1952 UFO sightings "flap", Hill’s sighting was briefly described (with some variation from Hill’s) by Project Blue Book head Edward J. Ruppelt in his 1956 book, but with Hill's name not given. Ruppelt referred to Hill as a 'high-ranking civilian scientist' from NACA, and concluded saying that, 'the man from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was a very famous aerodynamicist and of such professional stature that if he said the lights weren't airplanes they weren't.'" Ruppelt, Chapter 12 Hill's 1952 UFO sighting can also be found in the list of official Blue Book unknowns.[6] (See case 598, July 16, 1952; Tombaugh's sighting is also there, Case 248). Anyway, thanks for your vote to keep. I will be checking other "mainstream" sources to see if Hill is mentioned there.Dr Fil (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Followup My above comment apparently overlapped Dr. Fil's adding thelist of research and invention. That's all fine, but where are the sources for these things? EEng (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These were quick searches of Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, also the NASA history website. Hill also has at least one patent, which I haven't listed here. The point is "Paul R. Hill" is quite easy to find in mainstream, independent sources (such as his NACA/NASA publications) and the claims of those pushing deletion that no such sources existed were made up. These searches also turned up references to Hill in a recent memoir by Dr. Robert Brodsky, who refers to him as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day. He is also supposed to be listed in "Who's Who in Technology, 1989", which I have on order from a local university library. I will report what I find when it comes through. (Unfortunately other biographical information in two other books are not available through the library.)Dr Fil (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another search of the Web. Please don’t say again there isn’t any independent, mainstream material on Hill to verify anything in the Hill article or his book. Is this “mainstream” enough for everybody? It was even being questioned whether he ever worked for NACA or NASA.

1990 Obituary, From Google News, search "Paul R. Hill" [7]:

‎ Paul R. Hill search in Google Books[8] (stopped at page 10): (Sorry, had to delete all tinyurl links, since they were considered spam by Wikipedia, so just do your own search and the following will turn up)

Apparently biographical information here:

Research:

Ramjet work:


More on Hill’s work on flying platforms:

Flying platform research mentioned:

3rd Party biographical commentary on Hill’s space station/flying platform research:

Flying platform research and lunar lander:


Dr Fil (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal research in digging Hill's name out of a variety of technical publications, Dr. Fil. However, we need a source that specifically states what makes Paul R. Hill more notable than, let's say, "Emmanuel Schnitzer"..."David F. Thomas...."T.L. Kennedy", or any of the dozens and dozens of engineers who are also listed in these publications as working on these projects in contributor or supervisory positions. (Also can you please avoid cutting and pasting large masses of text to the discussion? It makes it difficult for others to follow. A link will do.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not allow tinyurl links, which I wanted to use. The original links often run several hundred characters, typically longer than the summaries. I listed everything in detail to refute the unsupported allegations that there were no independent, "mainstream", 3rd party sources on Hill to be found. Even his existence as a NACA/NASA research engineer was being questioned.
Hill was one of the pioneers of the ramjet, the flying platform (eventually incorporated into the lunar landing module), directed Langley's research into an inflatable space station (an idea that still has legs), designed the streamlining of the P-47 Thunderbolt (at one time the fastest propeller plane in the world), designed the first hypersonic wind tunnels for Langley. Those contributions alone would make him a "notable" in aviation history, at least as "notable" as most of the people listed over on Wikipedia's List of aerospace engineers with their own biographies. If you are like me, I have never heard of at least 80% of these aviation "notables" listed there. Ever hear of Roy Fedden? Anton Flettner? Raoul Haffner? What exactly does "notable" mean anyway? Celebrities are widely known to the public, making them "notable", though not necessarily particularly important, e.g. Miley Cyrus. But many people work in specialties generally not known to the public but well-known and respected in their fields in their day, who do make important contributions. Hill was one of those in aviation engineering R&D.
Hill was also a notable in the subject of Ufology for the book he wrote on the subject, applying his aerospace engineering background to analyzing the principles he believed behind their operation. (So did another aviation pioneer, Hermann Oberth, who, unlike Hill, was very publicly outspoken on the topic.) That is Hill's real "sin", and the real reason why skeptics are trying to delete the article on him, whether they like to admit it or not. They are also currently on a campaign to delete biographies on other UFO-related notables, people widely known in the field and considered to have made important contributions to it, but because the subject is UFOs are deemed worthy of censorship.Dr Fil (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your soapbox, please, and assume good faith. If he's notable for being a UFO-related crank, or for his other non-cranky academic work, his article should be kept, and if he isn't it shouldn't. We shouldn't be defending or attacking the subject here, only reporting on how it is received in the mainstream, and we shouldn't be basing our decision on whether to keep or delete the article on whether we want to defend or attack the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hill himself does not appear to pass WP:PROF or to have any notability beyond that of his book." "As above, Hill has no notability independent of his book." Please see my more detailed reply to LuckyLouie above. I would like to understand why Charles Zimmerman is considered notable enough for a separate Wiki bio including for his research on the flying platform at Langley from 1950-1953, when Hill was his boss, made the research possible because of his own interest in it, contributed as least equally to it, and coauthored with Zimmerman and separately authored NACA technical reports on the research, three of which I have cited. Zimmerman's entire short bio is based almost entirely on NACA technical reports from the 1930s. Why don't Hill's approximately 30 NACA/NASA technical reports from 1940-1970 also count in a career more diverse than Zimmerman's? Similarly, I would like to know why British aerospace engineer Ron Ayers, with a similar, perhaps less impressive resume' than Hill's, is deserving of his own Wiki bio and meets notability requirements, but not Hill. Please also explain why Dr. Robert Brodsky, himself considered an aerospace pioneer, in his memoirs refers to Hill as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day on a special advisory panel Brodsky assembled to figure out why their A-bomb designs were screwing up at Sandia Labs. I would think somebody like Brodsky, who actually knew Hill and obviously thought very highly of him from his book comments, felt him highly "notable," but people here who know nothing about Hill claim he is not. My point is that the "notability" standard here seems entirely arbitrary.
"...a properly neutral article on its subject is likely to be very difficult (therefore delete)." This is now getting ridiculous. Hill's career at NACA/NASA can and has been objectively verified right here. This is nothing but a matter of historical record. Why should there be any problems with neutrality on that? The ONLY thing that seems to be controversial are the views in his UFO book. Since when is it a proper Wiki rationale to delete matter simply because some of it is controversial? Clyde Tombaugh, Hermann Oberth, Michio Kaku, Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell, and Peter Sturrock have also express controversial views on UFOs, but their career facts aren't in doubt. Should we delete their bios too because of their controversial UFO opinions?Dr Fil (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More