Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk analysis (business)

: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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Risk analysis (business)]]=

:{{la|Risk analysis (business)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risk_analysis_(business) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Risk analysis (business)}})

This article refers to one methodology only (FRAP) which appears only to be used in the software industry. It does not refer to far more common business risk analysis tools and methods like Monte Carlo simulation, risk registers, etc. and how these are used to understand and manage risk. For example: http://www.apm.org.uk/PRAMGuide.asp - a guideline for project risk analysis; http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Spreadsheet-Risk-Modeling-Management/dp/1439855528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360077567&sr=8-1&keywords=groenendaal+risk+analysis - a text book on risk modeling; http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Risk-Management/dp/1934667412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360077854&sr=1-1&keywords=business+risk+management - a text book on risk management; http://www.amazon.com/The-Failure-Risk-Management-Broken/dp/0470387955/ref=pd_sim_b_2 - a text book on the failure of risk management Risk modeler (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment If the article's incomplete, you should improve it, or tag it with a template such as Template:Incomplete. It seems your only actions on Wikipedia have been to nominate articles for deletion and promote risk-analysis books, so you might want to read WP:AfD and reflect on what is an acceptable reason for deleting an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The title for this is bad; just about everything at Risk analysis (disambiguation) involves business. This seems to want to be about something called facilitated risk analysis process, and this noun string probably is giving you a sick feeling already. I have no opinion now as to whether this bit of IT-cruft could support a readable article in concrete English, but I do think that this title should redirect to the disambiguation page and that this page should move to its specific subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Risk analysis in business is a highly notable topic; the article has a few reliable sources, the nominator listed more reliable sources, and a quick Google search yields many books and articles on the subject. The main problem with the current state of the article is that it gives undue weight to just one approach to risk analysis and has nothing on other approaches, leading to a highly non-neutral point of view. This is a major problem, but it is one that is solved through editing and improving the article, rather than outright deletion. My opinion is that there are many different kinds of risks and different fields of endeavor have different methods for assessing risk; the risk of a new brand of toilet paper failing in the market is very different from the risk of global thermonuclear war. Accordingly, I think there is room for multiple articles on scientific risk analysis, business risk analysis, military risk analysis, etc. But for this article, the topic is highly notable and the article's problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details), suggesting that this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The article is incomplete, but the subject is clearly notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:39, 5 February 2013 (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.