* The journal the author claims it was published in (the Washington Academy of Sciences) doesn't seem to a reputation to speak of, or even have anything to do with radio astronomy http://www.washacadsci.org/journal/. Additionally, they haven't updated their catalog since 2013, so there's no way to even tell if it was published.
* The author has been accused of exaggerating his credentials before. He is an adjunct professor teaching two introductory courses at St. Petersburg College. He got a position as the Manager of Planetarium and Space Science Studies at the Museum of Science & Industry in Tampa, FL, which he announced on his website as "[Museum of Science and Industry] MOSI Selects Prof. Antonio Paris to Lead Space Program" (http://planetary-science.org/mosi-selects-prof-antonio-paris...). Additionally, his other credentials are suspect too. He claims to be the principal investigator at the site-B 10-meter radio telescope in central Florida. The "site-B 10-meter radio telescope" is his truck-mounted telescope.
> He also describes himself as an astronaut candidate with Project Possum, a four day suborbital flight program, and the director—and apparently also the sole employee—of the Center for Planetary Science, which he also founded. There's been a bit of disagreement as to Paris' education and the accuracy of his work, which Paris vehemently disputes. He claims that he was a former US Army Intelligence officer and as such, much of his life's work is classified. It's not exactly a clear-cut history
* A year when there were stories about him running a Kickstarter to buy a new radio telescope because all the other ones were booked for the year. Others pointed out that this was not true https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2016... and super sketchy (read through the other comments too). It appears that he just wanted people to buy him stuff, not for any actual investigatory need.
* Everything on this story has been sourced from http://planetary-science.org/. planetary-science.org appears to be run by the author and the author alone.
* The paper the article covers offers no actual comparison between the magnitude of the signal received and the original Wow! Signal. It only shows the raw signal on his own equipment, so there's no way to determine its magnitude relative to the original. The paper handwaves the question of magnitudes away as the original telescope being more sensitive, or the comet being older now.
Thanks, you could have left out the rest of the post which consists of unreliable heuristics... The heuristics are to help you decide whether to read the paper in the absence of further info. Since you already looked at it and offered substantial criticism, that was all superfluous.
* The journal it is published in is well known internationally for its astronomy coverage. The paper is freely available in their current online edition <here>.
* The author has understated their credentials. They are not just the described "professor", they are a senior research fellow at X university, and are not simply employed at the mentioned respected company, they actually were instrumental in creating it. They also didn't mention their awards or other involvements.
> The article describes the author as a principal investigator at Observatory 251. This IAU code references the telescope more commonly known as Arecibo, which was the largest such telescope in the world for some 50 years.
* The author is well known for their professional knowledge and research integrity.
* Everything in this story is verified by multiple respected sites.
I agree that there's utility in the list. The journal impact level, the quality and truthfulness of the author's credentials, the character of the author, and the article sources are the important question in this evaluation, not fame.
 specifically, the personal-website-masquerading-as-real-organization-page, unheard of journal, and exaggerated credentials are all the hallmarks of people who come up with proofs for perpetual motion, ways to trisect an angle with a straightedge, and how time travel is possible. If you work publicly in science, or are just listed on the faculty page of a university department, your email gets bombarded with these papers constantly.