Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Defence


 * 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. Neil  ╦  10:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Defence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Appears to rely entirely on the work of Sean Lyons, who seems to be the only person cited, and the only person who uses the term "corporate defence management". This is covered by risk management already. Rhobite 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see a response from the article creator. Given his contribution history, he might be able to explain the distinction between "corporate defence" and "risk management".  The fact that all the content stands on one pillar of Sean Lyons is a serious concern; there's actually a special template for that if the article is kept, but I don't know its code. Yechiel Man  03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for pov-check. -- saberwyn 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this will help clarify the difference. The term corporate defence differs from risk management in that it addresses the broader issue of the operational line management, and the responsibility, ownership and day to day implementation of corporate defence related activities. Risk Management as a discipline represents just one of these activities, see the corporate defence domain section. If you consider corporate defence as being similar to national defence whereby all defence related activities including the army, navy, airforce and marine corps etc all report to the Department of Defense and ultimately to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense via the Department of Defense ultimately has responsibility for formulating strategy and policy, and integrating policies and plans in order to achieve defense objectives. The line management for defence related activities retain responsibility for tactical planning and on the ground implementation and execution. In this instance the risk management process as a defence related activity would certainly be embedded into everyday operational activities however it only relates to one aspect of national defense and likewise corporate defence as described in the article. All reference to Corporate Defence Management is now only in the further reading section as it addresses this issue and may also be of interest. Corp Vision 12.41, 30 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Are there any references independent of 'Sean Lyons'? The only item in the references not self-authored seems to have nothing about this 'corporate defence' methodology and simply seems to have used it as a title for the paper.  All of the other links are to general risk management resources, or to utterly unrelated web sites.  I'm afraid that if no other verifications that this is a notable and significant niche of risk management (which I've never heard of) can be found, I can't see any reason why it would it shouldn't be removed.  I could care less about any detailed explinations of the methodology, I need to see some independent verification that sepcifically addresses the material in the article, please.  Kuru  talk  03:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Neologism and using Wikipedia for marketing. http://www.riskcenter.com is a "financial risk management media company", and Sean Lyons is their main man for marketing "Corporate Defense" http://www.riskcenter.com/bio.php?id=13844 -- if their own website can be believed. Corp Vision is WP:SPA and edits should be reverted. --SueHay 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In defence of the topic of Corporate Defence let me start by saying that the term corporate defence has been in use for a long time and therefore I doubt it could be considered a "Neologism". The very fact that it is used in so many different contexts merely illustrates the bread of the subject matter (i.e. governance, regulatory, risk management, security, protection and legal etc). This is not to say that any one of these uses is either right or wrong but simply stating a fact (see below for examples). Each use in its own way represents a line of defence within the corporate world. The purpose of its inclusion in wikipedia is to highlight this issue in its broader context. Bourdon in his speech acknowledged the roles of risk assessment, compliance and crisis management in this area and the articles by Lyons simply expand on this and flesh it out. These references appear to be the most relevant to this subject matter but obviously wikipedians can add or subtract here as deemed necessary. There are many references to this topic available in other articles, conferences and websites which refer to the scope of corporate defence and the products and services available in this area. To illustrate this point I have selected some examples below, which I am not recommending by included in the page itself but perhaps will give more comfort about the existence of the subject matter. That this viewpoint of corporate defence exists is a fact, whether it is considered to be the correct view or not is another issue, it is simply one way at looking at this topic. Each reader should be allowed the opportunity to make an informed decision based on the information available. Obviously the page itself can and should be improved, and hopefully this will occur over time however as a progressive encyclopedia, denying its existence and deleting it seems excessive. The defense rests it case. Corp Vision 19.01, 31 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Case For the Defence
 * IT Security
 * Security and Protection
 * Compliance
 * Investigations
 * IT Security
 * Resilience
 * Legal
 * Intelligence
 * Education
 * IT Security
 * Combination
 * Fraud (pages 8 and 9)
 * Governance (Slide 9)
 * IT Security
 * Combination
 * Investigations
 * Combination
 * Resilience
 * IT Security


 * Strong Delete. My request was for specific references to the established and verified  methodology of 'corporate defense'.  Instead, I'm seeing a list of completely unrelated google search hits on the coincidental intersection of the two words.  The article itself is merely a consultant pitch on fundamental concepts already covered under Risk Management, as per Rhobite.  I can find no other sources to support the content, and none have been offered, other than generic support of general RM business topics, and the individual consultant's work.  This is indeed close to an A11 speedy.  Kuru  talk  01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The originator of this article obviously understands that the term "corporate defence" has a wide range of meanings in various contexts. "Neologisms can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." Corp Vision has added this article to Wikipedia with his own interpretation of the meaning of corporate defence, neglecting to mention the wide range of common usage. His definition of the term is based solely on the recent work of Sean Lyons, yet he suggests that this term as he defines it is widely accepted within the field of risk management. There is no support for this claim. Corp Vision is using Wikipedia as a marketing tool by adding this article and also by adding this article to multiple "See also" sections in other articles. Since he's aware that his definition lacks general support, he is intentionally violating numerous Wikipedia policies, including neutral point of view and advertising. His links to his article from other Wikipedia articles amount to internal spamming, widespread enough to possibly be considered vandalism. This article was not created to help Wikipedia readers understand the topic, it was created to market his neologism. I gave my vote above and it hasn't changed. --SueHay 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Final word on the matter. The whole point is that the meaning is in fact always the same, to defend the organisation, the methods vary in the different contexts and will in fact vary to some degree in each individual situation.Corp Vision 19.38, 1 June 2007 (GMT)


 * Red Flag. Certain information has been brought to my attention which I believe needs to be addressed. In the interest of transparency I am calling on "Kuru" and "SueHay" to voluntarily disclose the commercial nature of their “Consulting Fee” arrangement on this topic, which is referred to in their communications outside of this forum. This is considered somewhat “rich” given some of  the previous inflammatory comments directed at indirect parties. As a “newbie” I consider that this type of subversive collusion by “wiki veterans”, at a minimum undermines the wikipedia process and could be seen to compromise the integrity of this exercise. I would appreciate if the “wiki administrator” would comment on this strategy..Corp Vision 19.39, 2 June 2007 (GMT)
 * It's a joke. Get over it and, again, please provide the references requested.  Kuru  talk  18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Corp Vision, Wikipedia editors and administrators are volunteers, we don't get paid, and our talk pages are in the public domain. Many brief exchanges between two editors are unclear to someone "listening in", just like any other conversation. As far as whether you're a newbie (newcomer) to Wikipedia, your username obviously is. But that doesn't mean that you, as a person, are a new editor trying your best to support Wikipedia's goals and policies. Based on your edits, I question that, and I've told you why.
 * The main point of this discussion is whether or not the article Corporate Defence should be deleted from Wikipedia. That's an administrative decision, it's not personal. If you did not understand Wikipedia's policies when you added this article, you can make that point by agreeing that the article should be deleted. --SueHay 00:58, 3 June 2007 (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.