Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduct Becoming

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. RL0919 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct Becoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined a spam speedy request, but my search to add reliable sources to show notability came up empty, despite the claims in the article. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. No notability. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Caveat: I was the editor who tagged it for CSD. My intent was to clean it up to remove all of the promotional puffery and unverified claims, but realized that there would be nothing left of the article. It's an article on a small university project that fails WP:ORGCRIT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is entirely promotional. Google didn't turn up sources to support notability. Natureium (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Organizations are not entitled to an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because their own self-published website provides technical verification that they exist — no matter how worthy or honourable their missions are, the inclusion test is still the reception of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (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.