Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk analysis

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 no consensus to delete. Discussion of whether and where to merge is best continued on the talk pages of the relevant articles. – Joe (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risk analysis

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

Incoherent article. A merge to Risk management was proposed, but I don't see much to merge and people see the article's incoherence as a hindrance to a merge. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposition that this is "incoherent". It is merely complex, and a little jargony. That said, it is probable fine to merge this, probably to Risk assessment. bd2412 T 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Risk management - there's something a bit odd about the implied hierarchy of topics between the three articles in play here. Risk management (RM) currently defines itself as risk identification, Risk assessment (RAss), risk prioritization and then action and monitoring. The Risk analysis article says after a bit of hedging that it includes RAss, risk characterization, RM, and so on. The RAss article is better defined and claims only that it estimates quantitative or qualitative risk. I conclude that Risk analysis and Risk management are very hard to distinguish and should be merged. This implies, by the way, that the claim in Risk analysis that it includes RM is incorrect. Both articles are inadequately cited; perhaps the merge will leave a slightly improved and more consistent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, (and I may be wrong) the real problem with the WP's "suite" of Risk articles is that they are Frankensteins of Risk terminologies from multiple practices -- I am unconvinced that merging will improve this mish-mashing. I would rather see a lot of practice-oriented splitting; but that would be a huge amount of collaborative, multi-practice work. I have wondered if what is really needed is Wikipedia:WikiProject Risk? IveGoneAway (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and found one, and do a bit of editing this week and rescue these articles, if you can. I think there is some meat in there, but I can't see that having so much overlap between this pair of articles is anything other than a WP:FORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That I might just do (found the project). As far as "saving" the article goes, my practice is AS9100, admittedly relatively narrow, but no overlap with the practices in the present article. The first sentence indicates the real problem; "Risk analysis can be defined in many different ways, and much of the definition depends on how risk analysis relates to other concepts.", suggesting a disambi for a number of Risk analysis (practice) articles, and I can concieve of practices that have Risk Assessment, but not Risk Management, much less a Risk Management System, but that is a topic for the Project. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an index, but not a disambiguation page, as these concepts are not ambiguous to each other, per WP:BROADCONCEPT. bd2412 T 03:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why merge to Risk management? Why not Merge to Risk assessment? Even in this article, assessment and analysis are used interchangeably (both are founded on R=L*C). Shouldn't we discuss Merge Qualitative risk analysis to Risk analysis first? IveGoneAway (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Risk assessment is a tightly-defined concept and clearly a 'subroutine' for the other two, which have all-encompassing definitions that are barely distinguishable. See for yourself. As for other articles, recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are bad articles and WP:FORKs all over, but that's not our concern here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I am not following you; you seem to say here that Risk analysis (quantification of risk under R=L*C, as presently written, ignoring the problematic lead) has Risk assessment as a subroutine. However, the present Risk analysis sections seem a subset of the present Risk assessment (not that that either content is necessarily standard definition for all practices). Moreover, ISO 31000 similarly defines 2.21 Risk analysis as a "subroutine" of 2.14 Risk assessment, the opposite of your argument, if I understand you correctly. ISO 3000 also defines Risk assessment to include risk estimation (which could be Quantitative or Qualitative). I acknowledge that ISO 3000 is not necessarily the definition of risk-related terms for all practices, but it is a standard for some practices. ISO 26262 has Risk "assessment" as the risk estimation (modified formula) and doesn't subdivide to "analysis". Under FAA Order 8040.4 (yes, dated 1998) "analysis" is followed by "assessment". Just merging or deleting Risk analysis will not address how different practices have different definitions, which IMO, is how we ended up with the two Assessment/Analysis articles. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2017 (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.