Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Howard

:{{la|Newton Howard}} ([{{fullurl:Newton Howard|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Howard}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Walled garden built around Newton Howard and his activities. Neither Howard himself nor his institutions garner anything more than trivial google hits (most of those being press releases). Howard himself, I believe, fails the tests at WP:PROF, as most of his writings are published by his own think tank. Recommend Delete All Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also adding:

:{{la|Center for Advanced Defense Studies}}

:{{la|Intent-centric paradigm}}

:{{la|Descartes Medal in Cognitive Studies}}

See also Intention awareness

• Delete All as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment – OK, lets take these one at a time:

• Strong Keep for "Center for Advanced Defense Studies". Has significant coverage from reliable – independent – verifiable and creditable sources as shown here [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Center+for+Advanced+Defense+Studies%22].
• Merge/Redirect Intent-centric paradigm to Center for Advanced Defense Studies as it is an integral part of the company’s agenda.
• Merge/Redirect Descartes Medal in Cognitive Studies to Center for Advanced Defense Studies as it is an integral part of the company’s agenda.
• Merge/Redirect Newton Howard to Center for Advanced Defense Studies as Mr. Howard is an integral part of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 November 2008
• Rely I disagree that your google search demonstrates significant coverage. Your search lists 54 news hits. Of the first 10, 6 are press releases. Of the other news stories, none of them directly cover C4ADS; rather, there are single quotes from fellows at the center. A single line in a story doesn't count as significant coverage. And since the Center doesn't establish notability, there's no sense merging or redirecting the other articles into it. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all Update for hits 11-54: there are a few press releases, but almost all of the hits are random mentions ('"...", said ____, a member of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies'), and none are sufficient for the in-depth coverage we require. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete for Howard, Keep for the Center. The Center is a notable think tank, as shown by fairly widespread involvement; It can be rather tricky to show notability of research and consulting organizations involved in national security, but this one seems at least to court publicity. Its director,however, would be notable if at all only as its director, not an academic: Only one of his publications is an actual book listed by library of congress, rather than a pamphlet or paper: Seeking peace in our time : toward a global defense policy system of laws but besides them, no US libraries own it. And I can not find that any of his publications was ever published in a peer reviewed third party publication--Scopus has no listings at all for him. RIT lists him as an Associate professor, not full Professor [http://www.rit.edu/programs/grad/colleges/ccis/faculty.html]. I tend to get suspicious of that when someone is described as just "faculty" and the university web site is not listed. DGG' (talk) 02:33, 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,  Sandstein  17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect independent notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep only Center for Advanced Defense Studies, and delete all the rest. The nomination was correct, this seems like a typical example of a WP:WALL. When you look at Intention awareness, for example, it does seem like the kind of nonsensical pseudoscience that has zero chance at notability. The courses offered by the CADS seem to be well below the level of quality offered by legitimate defense-related education institutions such as the Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense Acquisition University. Nevertheless, a [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Harvard+University%22+%22Center+for+Advanced+Defense+Studies%22&btnG=Search Google Search] suggests that the CADS has several collaborations with Harvard University. It may well be that the CADS actually gets defense contracts because of these types of partnerships, rather than because it is a notable organization in and of itself.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all but CADS (about which no opinion). I just tagged another piece of this walled garden, Institute for Mathematics Complexity and Cognition, for an A7 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the walled garden, this definitely seems legit. Numerous references from world renowned organizations such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University and the Cyber Security and Research Policy Institute at the George Washington University. As founder and director, Newton Howard could be merged into this article. Strong keep for CADS with Newton Howard merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.154.222 (talk) 10:51, 20 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.