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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Initially speedied this as a copyvio, but have had second thoughts so am bringing it here. The article as a whole seems to make no sense, and I honestly don't believe it would make sense even to a specialist in the field. The first half (the section in quotes) is a word-for-word copyvio from the first reference, while (as best I can tell) the rest of the article takes 200 words to say "it's a good idea to warn people before they do something dangerous". The article's been tagged for cleanup since July, and while the author has made some minor edits to it since then, it doesn't seem either to be being cleaned up or to be cleanuppable. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since you opened this discussion, in that case, can you actually do something constructive and restructure it instead of merely(and simplistically)nominate it for deletion?? thank youGrandia01 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WE MUST RISK DELETION The risk of not deleting this risky article risks violating the encyclopedic principles of this risky encyclopedia, though having an open-source encyclopedia has risks, we riskingly risk a risky danger of misunder-risk-estimating- what a combobulatingly risky mess of (I'l risk a guess and estimate)200 risked words which risked the possibility of risking deletion due to the fact that this article is patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged. OfficeGirl 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)i repeat my request,can someone indulge us with the favor of working on it a bit to improve it,including you officegirl?? 2)this article is patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged wow hold on there,this article is-as i said before-merely nothing but 2 quotations from 2 governmental/public entities;if that's nonsense then what else isn't?? also,what do you mean patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged??thats it??this article is redeemed irredeemable just because the honorable master business strategist officegirl said so??sad 3)good use there of the word risk,if you would have used that talent in working on this article then things would be much different now,good life achievement i must sayGrandia01 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• RESPONSE Grandia01, even though you have now deleted a portion of the horribly poor and repetitive bad writing in the article the best thing that you have offered in defense of this article is an obscure, small paragraph (which, as is typical of committee-composed documents, is badly written and chock full of the word "risk" over and over again) hidden within a little-known 197-page document from a sub-organization of the United Nations. Basically you have shown us that you are trying to write an article about a phrase of techno-jargon that is not recognized or used in any notable way. The burden of proof was upon you, the article's proponent, and no amount of personal attacks leveled at the rest of us will lift that burden off your shoulders. Your documentation is proof that this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Though it may be risky, I think it is riskier to leave this nonsense around. Maybe an expert could salvage it, but it definitely doesn't fit how it is right now.Ravenmasterq 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok so right now even a simple definition from the united nation is not worthy enough to exist in wikipedia because its 1)"not notable" and 2)techno-jargon as master smart a** officegirl said. amazing. hey officegirl,ur still single??Grandia01 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You have to stop with the personal attacks. This makes the third warning. Smashville 06:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If originator is unable to make sense of it per above, then it is unsalvageable. Smashville 06:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• whateverGrandia01 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's now been "cleaned up" so that it's just a single long quote about what risk communication is. Here's a better definition - it's the communication of risk, especially in the context of risk management. --Haemo 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your constructive(unlike most others') suggestion, but don't bother about giving your opinion here, even if you simply provided the most reliable definition/entry for this stub from the most reputable sources, world business masters here will still nominate it for deletion for various amazing reasons(see above).don't botherGrandia01 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a buzzword, it is two words stung together in exactly the way one might expect, meaning exactly what one might expect. Therefore, Grandia01, it does not merit an entry on Wikipedia. Speciate 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh gee Speciate you might want to forward this precious "correction" to harvard school as well hopefully your unmatchable prowess in business can correct their teachingsGrandia01 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Business majors take obvious and straightforward things and make them part of their mysterious buzzword religion. Speciate 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

impressive Speciate, even harvard school needs your corrections i see. i'll nominate you to completely re-haul our education system one day. best of luck professorGrandia01 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trollicious. Speciate 08:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandia, this is your last warning about personal attacks. Smashville 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though the use of the term on Wikipedia seems to be rare (though not without opportunity!), bullshit is an apt moniker for this article. /Blaxthos 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and bullshit is an apt description of this so-called contribution of yoursGrandia01 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete patent nonsense. No context that I can make sense of. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this really is a terrible article. Not only does it currently consist entirely of a copyvio from [1], but all it essentially says is "risk communication is communicating information about risks". It never was much more than a dictionary definition, violating WP:NOT#DICT. The creator seems unable to defend the article without resorting to personal attacks. Hut 8.5 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Risk management, of which it is part. There is nothing that could be constructed here which couldn't be better placed there, especially since risk management is common management terminology and a far more likely search term, and is also used by PMBOK, the ANSI-accredited project management standard. Incidentally, PMP Study Guide (Heldman, 2005) calls it "information gathering" and never once uses the awkward construction "risk communication" - however I've heard it used in literature occasionally. Orderinchaos 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Since you seem to have more detailed knowledge of the field of risk management than the average user, I am really glad you joined this discussion. I notice you are telling us that this term "risk communication" is rarely used in the field, and I think many in this discussion would heartily agree that as a term it is an awkward construction. I don't think there's sufficient justification for a redirect in this case. It's just not likely to be a search term that people will be interested in. I think you hit the nail on the head when you identified "risk management" as the useful search term and topic. OfficeGirl 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a stubby article, but it is about a legitimate subject, and the stub article can be expanded in the future. I think a person can even get a graduate degree in Risk Communication, which is not really a subfield of risk management (communicators are not managers). Subtopics in the field that have little to do with risk management include perception of risk (why do people fear air crashes more than auto accidents?) and public participation (how to discuss risk in a public meeting about nuclear reactor?). See http://www.riskworld.com/organizations/centers.htm#RiskCommunication&Perception and http://www.sra.org/about_specialty_groups_overview.php#comm (the latter is a risk communication professional group established in 1990) for indications of the topic's notability.--orlady 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY The article as nominated is not stubby, but rather insanely substandard with no indications that anything good could ever be made of it. Not even good enough for the sandbox. HOWEVER, if you have access to real and intelligible reliable sources that you can use to make this topic into a decent article worthy of Wikipedia's standards AND if you get the article whipped into shape before the time expires on this AfD discussion, then I will be glad to change my vote. (and I mean really glad-- I would really give you your props if you did it) But evidence that someone POTENTIALLY COULD work on this article SOMEDAY is not justification for keeping the load of nonsense which we have been dealing with thus far in this AfD. Go to it, orlady! I am hoping to see good results.OfficeGirl 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl, have you looked at the article recently? By the time I visited this AFD, the spammy advertisement for the conference next year had been removed from the article, and the only remaining content was a definition of "risk communication," sourced to the FAO. That's a stub, pure and simple. What harm is there in keeping a short stub? --orlady 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that the spammy advertisement for the conference next year has been removed from the article, the only remaining content is a copyvio from FAO, to be more accurate — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For pity's sake, why is it that so many people can complain so eloquently about the shortcomings of someone else's work without lifting a finger to help them fix it? I reworded definition slightly and added some more similar content from another source that happens to be public domain. It's no masterpiece, but it will serve to fill a hole until someone with expertise shows up to write a good article. --orlady 22:56, 3 September 2007 (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.