Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis management


 * 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 But article does seem to need a major rewrite... still, there's a consensus for an article on this topic, and the current one can be scraped down to the stub suggested below by "ZZ" if nothing else. W.marsh 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Crisis management

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and Salt  contested prod. Article doesn't establish any particular notability for concept, and was tagged unreferenced for the last 6 months. PROD removed without comment, complete rewrite in <12 hours. Article went from badly written how-to guide to press release. History of article is overwhelmingly link-spam and unencyclopedic writing. Since this is a vaguely defined, promotional buzzword, it's unlikely an article can be written that isn't promoting someone. Violates: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT. Horrorshowj 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Business buzzword whose article probably can't be rewritten in a neutral, non-spammy, form.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crisis management depicts what organisations (governments/companies) do when there is some kind of catastrophe, tidal waves and fires come to mind. It's a common term to the UK, just because Americans don't use or understand this term doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It is a badly written article but the prod and Afd were a mistake. Operating 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Claiming the only reason for nomination is due to my being American is ridiculous. I admitted the term exists but if it's a notable and definitive concept, where are the references? This article has been around since 2003 and still doesn't have any. The edit history of the article is largely having SPA's completely rewrite it in the image of their other advertisements and linkspam. Give me an article that proves the concept is notable and can be handled in an encyclopedic fashion and I'll withdraw the Afd. Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a frivolous Afd when i saw it and nothing in this discussion so far has changed my mind. Very few articles on wikipedia are well cited. That doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Operating 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not just a buzzword, it's spawned a whole industry of authors, consultants and other experts even before terrorism became a big concern in 2001. The term incorporates the entirety of protecting personnel, inventory, business data, and other "business continuity" concerns, as well as publicity management and victim or plaintiff interaction. --Dhartung | Talk 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. When "buzzwords" become widespread, they are notable. I'm not a fan of the article's current state, but the topic is notable, in government and business, and is certainly not a UK-only term. Salting is over the top for an article that hasn't even been deleted once yet. -- Groggy Dice T | C 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
 * You're right no preemptive strikes.Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - still activly under development. May I suggest the Editor get some Citations to support the article better. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources, no Verifiability. I concede that this is a notable topic, and sources likely exist. However, we already have an article that deals with this topic - Emergency management, of which (in the EU) Crisis Management is a component. From Emergency Management: "Within EU countries the term Crisis Management emphasises the political and security dimension rather than measures to satisfy the immediate needs of the civilian population." The Emergency Management article deals with many of the issues raised in this article, except in a clear manner with multiple sources. Unless there are elements of Crisis Management which do not touch on Emergency Management (the business aspect, for example), then there is nothing in this article worth keeping as a merge to Emergency Management. I have no objection to a new article on Crisis Management, provided that it focuses on the business aspect of the concept (we don't need to duplicate effort), and so long as adequate sources are provided. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep this article. Crisis Management is an important feature to be found in any organisations that recognises the risks it faces and most likely has also built up its business continuity plans. It should not be confused with Emergency Management which has more to do with fire fighting insofar that emergency management it is about tackling an emergency - only. Crisis Management on the other hand, is much more about confirming, controlling and communicating throughout the entire acute period of any catastrophe which could easily last for days or even weeks. Very many organisations have already set up Crisis Management Teams specifically for this purpose to ensure staff are accounted for, stakeholders reassured, someone gives the right message to the media, the correct levers are pulled to trigger an accurate business continuity response and so on. The CM Team would probably liaise with the emergency services when or if, they arrive. Of course some corporate dramas do not require the blue lights to turn up. For example, wide spread public warnings, pandemics, urgent product recalls, financial collapse and so on. However, these scenarios certainly do require crisis management skills. I suggest anyone who doubts what I am saying goes, for example, onto the UK Govt. Dept. for business enterprise and regulatory reform (was the DTI...) http://www.dti.gov.uk/sectors/infosec/infosecadvice/incidentmanagement/crisismanagement --Patrick56 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep this. Ref above - as the author of the latest and more comprehensive version (as at 8 October 2007 and subsequently expanded) I have noted what others have said here and an hour ago submitted an amended and more explanatory version.--Patrick56 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Patrick56 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge - this article is largely meaningless unsourced speculation and reads like the script for an informercial. The few salient points in the article should be stripped out and moved into Crisis and/or Risk Management. Torc2 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Type in "crisis management" on Google and you will see there are already 2,010,000 entries. It's naive to suggest this is a meaningless or speculative subject. It is likewise inaccurate to assume crisis management is just emergency or risk management. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain terms such as this? Many people, organisations, symposia, conferences and books have crisis management as a core value. Take for example:





















--Patrick56 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The majority of the google hits I saw, and the majority of the links posted above, are to commercial organizations who appear to be selling goods or services related to Crisis Management. Unfortunately, these aren't good sources. The DTI link is dead, as well - though I found this link that appears to be a successor organization within the British government. That would probably be a good resource to start off with - but only if it's properly incorporated into the article. The goal is to have every statement or fact supported by a reliable source. Currently, none of the statements are supported, and many are claims or advice which may border on Original Research, which is not permissable. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Several more external links have just been  added to the article following comments on this page.--Patrick56 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't you mean to say "I added several external links to the article...?" I agree with  ZZ, the links are pretty bad.  Also, why did you mark all your edits as minor?  They're really not.  And why have you voted three times five times on this?  Torc2 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Of course I made changes to my first draft and have not pretended otherwise. These follow various constructive reactions on this page. However, I really do not plan make any more changes as some contributors are, in my opinion, missing the entire point about crisis management. Fortunately the British Standards Institute are not amongst them. I am informed that early next month they are having a meeting specifically to discuss crisis management gaining further recognition by now being considered for a precise British Standard. This plus other external crisis management links (UK Government and others) seem to me to contradict those few people on this page who believe the subject to be a 'gimmick' or 'meaningless unsourced speculation' or a 'promotional buzzword'. I had thought the raison d’être of Wikipedia was to help explain issues like this? --Patrick56 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. With all respect, this is a good topic for Wikipedia, no question. The issue is not with the topic, but with the article. The article as it stands is an essay, unsupported by sources. Here's how it should read: "Crisis management is a discipline within Management taht deals primarily with preparations for and reactions to unexpected or serious situations which may threaten to hinder or halt the operations of a business or other organization. The related term Emergency management focuses on the protection of lives and property during an emergency or disaster situation. " There's the lede. Now, each statement thereafter gets a reference. "According to X, Crisis Management is composed of several phases, including Preparedness, Evaluation, Reaction, and Recovery." Then you tag it as a ref and move on. At the end, you add a reflist and it creates a list of all your sources. When people here cite Verifiability and No Original Research, they're saying that the article reads as if it's what you, the author, are saying. It needs to read as if it's a list of stateemnts about the topic, each neutral and backed by an independent, verifiable source that says so. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:44, 14 October 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.