Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Containment Methodology

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Containment Methodology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this while looking for sources for a related AfD for The Miracles Report. A search comes up with nothing that I could find that would show that this specific system is particularly notable. It's a noble cause, but we can't keep things just because they're noble or nice. The sources on the article don't really help as far as notability goes, since most of them are primary source, links to pages for the physicians, or things that aren't really about this specific system. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons stated by the nominator. Despite the relatively long list of sources, I see too many issues with the nature of these sources and how this system is mentioned to accept sufficient notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most (if not all) of the sources are either about the topic of workplace bullying in general without mentioning CCM anywhere, or are first-party. Therefore notability is not established. --Atlantima (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (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.