Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Containment Methodology (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Containment Methodology[edit]

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

This appears to be a new product that doesn't have the notability required to remain here. Most search results are from the company itself, their press releases, or advertising for the system. Dismas|^(talk) 05:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been some misunderstanding as to what CCM is... It is not a 'product' but a system or set of methodologies that can be applied to reduce liability using existing workplace products, procedures and programs. It is not new and has been used since 2008 as outlined in the case reviews in the Miracles Report - Australian and Local Government and Corporate and Private service have benefited from the methodology. The CCM system is no different to that of a system such as SixSimga, but unlike Sigma, it is not a system to buy but a methodology that forms part of recommendations for an initiative for reducing Employer risk and psychological Injury. Issadora1 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. It's unlikely that a "methodology", or "set of methodologies", or "system", whichever it is, ever could be notable. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many systems and methods that wikipedia articles are available for and once again I use Six sigma as an example, I do not necessarily agree that six sigma is notable but that is subject to the interpretation of the user. I don't understand the difference, could you please explain so I do not write further contributions that may not be suitable. Issadora1 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scores a massive 287 (two hundred eighty seven) Google hits. Notable? Don't think so. The Banner talk 22:22, 15 September 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.