Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intention awareness


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Intention awareness

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I stumbled across what seems to be a walled garden based on Newton Howard. Google doesn't seem to indicate that this term is notable, and the only two references cited were written by the term's originator. If sources show the term is notable, I'll happily withdraw my nom. Otherwise, Delete. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Center for Advanced Defense Studies.  The references do not assert enough notability to merit its own article.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have serious concerns with Center for Advanced Defense Studies as well. Large portions of that article are copied from the website, and the article cites no sources.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete in the absence of multiple third-party sources that would attest to the notability of this as an academic concept. A Google scholar search for Howard's papers on this subject didn't find any with more than one citation, a very small number for a topic of academic research of any interest at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part of a WP:WALL; the theory seems like a WP:FRINGE with no chance at notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:42, 21 November 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.