Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governance, risk management, and compliance


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Governance, risk management, and compliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. I'm not able to find any sources that specifically indicate that these topics are specifically notable when combined, as opposed to their established notability as separate concepts. Each of the three primary related articles, Governance, Risk management, and Regulatory compliance, already offer comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of these topics, making this article redundant at best. --Darkwind (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep When I removed the PROD, I added a source which specifically addresses the topic: the Governance, Risk, and Compliance Handbook. The nominator therefore does not appear to have read the article and has made no effort to discuss the matter at the article's talk page where I have added links to other sources such as The ABCs of GRC.  This process is therefore premature per our deletion policy and WP:SK:
 * "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected"
 * "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question"
 * Note also that our article is cited in Governance, risk management and compliance and what it means to you - a good testimonial of its value to our readership.
 * Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, I have read the article, and I did look at the reference you provided. While the book's title does indeed match that of the article, I don't see where it provides any information about the synthesis or union of these three topics (which are already covered by other Wikipedia articles). What I don't see is what this article adds that isn't covered by the individual separate articles on these topics.  It's like writing a book about Pork, beef, and venison - that doesn't mean that Pork, beef, and venison is a useful or required Wikipedia article, even if you might cook them the same way and use similar or identical tools to manage them. Also, I don't believe WP:SK (specifically the "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected" clause) applies to rejected PROD discussions.  By the nature of PROD, you were the only one who had objected to the deletion before it was discussed here. Listing it at AfD is a perfectly acceptable way to bring the discussion to a larger audience and garner a consensus. However, that being said, if the consensus is that this book makes the topic notable, then I'll withdraw the AfD. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per references added. Google news archive has 511 references. Google books has 61 books with this term, including some with that term in the title. google scholar has 91 references to the term. Okip   02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - per objections above, it's apparent that the consensus is that this article is useful. However, it needs a lot of cleanup, and I trust that there won't be any objection to it being tagged appropriately. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Always check Google news search and Google book search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion, and try to discuss things on the talk page.  D r e a m Focus  06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This should run the full time. for one thing, I am not convinced this is the standard term. "Corporate regulatory compliance and risk management" is apparently the actual topic, as close as I can get to it in ordinary English. The term actually used more in the management literature cited by the article is "Governance, risk and compliance" .  Ref.1, the example offered to us by Colonel Warden as an example of the title does not match the article title, but uses that phrase--"Governance, risk and compliance"). Ref 2 in the article uses that phrase also, as does ref 3; Ref 4 has a different title altogether.  --WorldCat gives only a single use, and that only as a subtitle in a more complex phrase "Data protection : governance, risk management, and compliance" . It gives more under "governance, risk and compliance  This is not just a title dispute overrwhich form of the words -- but my thought that  we are going very much down the wrong path if we start adopting every current combination of catch phrases used in management.    DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The common TLA for this topic is GRC and there is naturally some variation in its expanded forms but it is still the same topic. Expressing business concepts in this way is a common form of expression, e.g. BPR and TQM.  We see this in Wikipedia too - AFD, RFA, RFC, DYK, &c.  Anyway, for numerous hits on Worldcat, please see this search. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2010 (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.