Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RiskAoA

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. Wow. When you plow through the mountains of rambling here, this boils down to a clear consensus to not keep this in its present form. There were some reasonable suggestions to merge this to Analysis of Alternatives, but that didn't gain traction with other participants in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA

RiskAoA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article fails general notability guidelines: I cannot find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject (a software package used internally by the United States Department of Defense).

The article was created by a user, User:GESICC who has a declared connection (conflict of interest) and whose username is the same as a for-profit corporation registered in the State of Ohio by a person reportedly involved in creating and documenting the software package.

User:GESICC has also made grand claims about the importance of the software package that do not appear to be supported by reliable independent sources, such as: "The RiskAoA approach is also noted for being the first predictive decision-making tool" and "These capabilities of RiskAoA are unprecedented; making it the most advanced alternatives management technology employed institutionally, and the first demonstrating the predictive character of the risk management discipline".

Links from other articles to this one were created by User:GESICC. Nominated for deletion by Biogeographist (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative note: I accidentally marked this page as patrolled, trying to discover what "patrolled" was.GESICC (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (article author)

1. The article was entered into the without regard for wiki deletion policy or wikiediquette, it was entered for deletion immediately after repairs had begun.
2. Most errors in the article were fixed prior to deletion recommendation. They were were repeated in the recommendation, despite the repair.
3. If "GESICC" remains a problem, this is addressable.
4. There is this claim that DoD sources cannot be independent, and don't have valid news sources independent from themselves, either. This is a preposterous claim, if it is maintained, needs to be demonstrated. Here are the relevant references, in line with wiki-guidance. It must be noted, that this program, is NOT for the general public, and like any other distribution-limited or classified product, notability must be considered in this light. A secret program may or may not be notable, but it will have constraints put on it by limited ability to be discussed. RiskAoA is Distribution B, it's audience is the entire US Government, and has been made notable to it via independent sources. Indeed, it is notable because it is novel technology that requires protection.

Source	Typ	Notability	Verifiable	Independent
AFRL Techmilestones	??	Definitional	Yes	See below
TRANSCOM New Service	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
Defense Acquisition University	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
Defense AT&L	Secondary	Yes	Yes	No
Global University Alliance	Third-party	Yes	Yes	Yes
AFRL Systems Engineering Initiative	Validation Test	Yes	Yes	No*
Defense Acquisition University (AFMC)	Program Office	Yes	Yes	No
Skywriter (Newspaper).	Third-party	Yes	Difficult/Yes	Yes

AFRL Techmilestones is a annual report by AFRL leadership stating its accomplishments for the year. It is obviously biased, but it is also a definitional document. In other words, what it states is now history, it is not disputable. The independence of the document is hierarchical, in other words, it is not the report of the programs it represents, but of the organization at large. It is DoD, and therefore non-profit motivated, etc.. What this means to Wikistandards is beyond me. It does say that it is the only Cybertechnology produced that year, the Cyber mission being one of its six primary missions.
AFRL System Engineering Initiative was the "independent," that is to say, non-affiliated panel that verified that RiskAoA was a valid working program. It should be noted that, this panel specifically validated that it worked, without endorsing the product.
Yes, the TRANSCOM News Article was created from the AT&L journal article.
The Defense AT&L established that the Undersecretary for Defense allowed it to be used US Government wide.
Defense Acquisition University: Says it is a good tool to do what it is supposed to do, and AFMC (same link) states that there is still a supporting program office.

Article Conflicts of Interest are removed. Indeed, ironically, I was never paid to develop the program. I don't think there remain any issues to resolve, that can't be done by further editing the page itself.

What can be verified about RiskAoA makes it notable. Both within wikiguidance and within the parameters of what those guides are intended to accomplish.

It must be considered that many military systems are notable despite a paucity of references. Examples Global Combat Support System, and Global Command and Control System, and many notable systems have no wikiarticle at all, and cannot if one holds rigidly to wikiguides, which are not meant to be held to rigidly.
GESICC (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment: The preceding comment by User:GESICC is chronologically out of order and is a repetition of arguments that have already been made and responded to in the discussion below. The first two points are false, and have already been rebutted. The fourth point, on the independence of US military sources, is disputed. The references have been discussed below, and I have dismissed the PowerPoint presentation as particularly irrelevant to notability and as failing to support the claim that it is supposed to support in the article. The reference to the USTRANSCOM News Service erroneously links to a copy of the article in Defense AT&L magazine. Biogeographist (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

GESICC, inc. no longer exists except as a artifact. GESICC was unable to use the program in business, as it is distribution limited.
There are a handful of vetted sources, most notably, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, which lists it as AFRL only Cyber-technology for that year, Cyber technology being a key mission area. Several other notable features.
Citations cover claims first predictive tool... https://dap.dau.mil/aphome/das/Lists/Software%20Tools/DispForm.aspx?ID=57 (not by creator)
Others are listed here: http://www.dau.mil/publications/DefenseATL/DATLArchivecompletepdf/jan-feb07.pdf
Peer review (prototype): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005systems/wednesday/nolte.pdf
Documentation, administrative data was created by user.
The user is no longer associated with, or able to influence the program.
This article is not biographical.
Finally, peer review process is robust and hierarchical within DoD, leading to fewer press releases.
The (talk) has already begun removing references to the article, pre-decision, also modifying RiskAoA content.
Conflict of interest criteria have been removed.
GESICC (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC) The (talk) was aware of these when the nomination was createdGESICC (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The documents that User:GESICC cites above are U.S. military sources that do not establish notability; they are the only information publicly available on the subject; and one of those sources was written by Gregory Tyler, who registered the corporation GESICC, the company that User:GESICC adopted as a username: Tyler, Gregory; Masquelier, Barbra (January 2007). "Quantifying risk across the Department of Defense" (PDF). Defense AT&L. 36 (1): 60–61. (This is essentially self-citation in an AfD discussion.)

Also notice that User:GESICC created this article in March 2010 but did not declare a connection to the subject until yesterday after being questioned about having posted so much non-verifiable information (and only then did User:GESICC remove some of the more obviously promotional material from the article, including a prominent link to Gregory Tyler's website). Biogeographist (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

One particularly strong reference for notability is that there is a Air Force Program Office (for government and affiliates) and Public Affairs office (for the general public) that questions may be directed to, perhaps that is why the link to these sources was removed. This, in many ways is better than a Journal article.GESICC (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the previous comment relates to notability, but I can clarify why the link was removed. If User:GESICC is referring to my removal of the URL http://www.afmc.af.mil/Units/Headquarters/ from the infobox in my last edit to this page, the reason I removed that URL is because it provides no information whatsoever about RiskAoA. It does not even mention RiskAoA or make clear who should be contacted for more information about RiskAoA, contra the claim of User:GESICC above. This highlights how little information is available about this product. A website link in an infobox about a product should provide information about that product, not require users to guess about who should be telephoned or emailed (and a telephone conversation is not "better than a journal article" given that Wikipedia requires reliable published sources). My edit also followed the removal of another URL from the same field in the infobox, namely http://www.psychomorphs.com/. Feel free to add another link in the infobox that provides information about the product. Biogeographist (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is notable because there is an active government-run office for the product, whose job it is to be contacted and queried. The Department of Defense has contact protocols.GESICC (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Presumably there are many big, important organizations that have custom software solutions that they use internally. That doesn't make the software notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. Especially when the software is not even mentioned on the organization's website that is linked in an infobox. Biogeographist (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

However, the US Government is not Walmart, it is ubiquitous to every state and most industries, with ties to academia, the program is available to all the US government, and government contractors, whom are even larger, in accordance with Distribution B. Your presumption that it is only used by the DoD is somewhat understandable - I will update the site using this feedback. True, it is not listed on WPAFB, it IS listed on the Defense Acquisition University(DAU), which is appropriate, WPAFB mission is program management, DAU mission is education. GESICC (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that "the program is available to all the US government, and government contractors" does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which require that the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable published secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The guidelines note: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." And: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Since one of the primary sources for the RiskAoA article is its entry at the Defense Acquisition Portal list of software tools, I reviewed the Defense Acquisition Portal list of all software tools and searched for them all on Wikipedia. Out of the more than 70 tools listed, only two others have Wikipedia articles: the Defense Acquisition Guide (which has also been tagged as having questionable notability, although it seems to be cited widely enough that it may pass the notability guidelines) and SEER-SEM (which is very widely discussed in secondary sources and easily passes the notability guidelines). RiskAoA, in contrast, fails the general notability guidelines. The fact that RiskAoA is mentioned in a couple of documents on the Defense Technical Information Center website and the Defense Acquisition University website (a corporate university of the United States Department of Defense) does not establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing such laborious work. I did some myself regarding notability, by reviewing random articles on Wiki. Ignoring biographies, of 74 entries, I discovered 3 notable despite no references, 2 without references, 52 had 2 or fewer references, and approximately 41% had references that did not meet notability GUIDELINES. Some were genus of animal, failing, yet notable, there was a hot sauce and a several obscure movies. This is why they are guides. There are other than academic ways to be notable. For example, RiskAoA passed through the Science policy of the United States Basic Research to Operational Use 6.1, 6.2, 6.3... etc., wickets in order for it to be "tech transitioned," by AFRL, as it's only cyber technology on 2006, this is notable. The DoD has different standards then academia, and wiki acknowledges not all notables come from academia. RiskAoA, to become a program, also had to pass through the DoD Acquisition Process, Milestone Decision Authorities, for example, (AFRL/SEI-as RiskHammer, was also it's transition from 6.2 to 6.3, for the final), to become a program. Are all successful DoD programs notable? I'd lean towards yes. The other tools you vigorously investigated did not involve new science or technology, they were also not DoD programs and did not require any novel theory to be proven, etc.. The theory behind RiskAoA had to be rigorously proven to work before the US Government can be allowed to use it. I should probably be clear, the theory had never been applied this way, and the algorithms were unproven.GESICC (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Defense Acquisition Universities website is not affiliated with me, and is actually endorsed by two organizations, DAU and Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and required sponsorship. The Journal is by myself and another author, and a valid Journal. So we have five citations, of which I wrote one and a half. Of those, one was not primary research and peer reviewed, the other is the user's manual (documents administration, little citation value). The 2006 Tech Milestones (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) is a major citation, and dramatically notable. AFRL Systems Engineer Initiative demonstrated the unprecedented technology had been successfully applied, the Defense Acquisition University represents it may be used operationally, and the Journal of AT&L demonstrates it's validity as a US Government tool. With that, I think we can agree, RiskAoA now merits an entry. It has been corrected from self-promotion, cited, claims defended, and therefore not deleted.GESICC (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We agree that there are a lot of very low-quality articles on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for inclusion or quality; that is why users have to be so cautious about using Wikipedia and must judge articles on a case-by-case basis. We do not agree that notability of this article is established. I think we are repeating ourselves and we need other experienced editors to step in and contribute to this conversation. (As a side note, I think the lack of publicly available information on RiskAoA/Supervene is an opportunity for you: You could write a book on the topic and get credit for your knowledge. I would like to read an accessible chapter about how this approach relates to other multiple-criteria decision-making methods and decision support in general.) Although I find the subject interesting, I am far from convinced that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this point in time and I would like to hear from other editors. Biogeographist (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, Technology Milestones (see above) is a definitive and historical work, it can not be objected to like something espoused in a journal or book. It is not what it says about RiskAoA as much as it is documenting. GESICC (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@GESICC: I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last comment. The "Technology Milestones" document is an annual report of the Air Force Research Laboratory. It is a primary source, not a secondary source; it is not independent; and RiskAoA is only mentioned on one page buried in the middle of the document. It does not establish notability. But, again, I think we are repeating ourselves. Biogeographist (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This article needs some sources that are independent of Tyler and/or the Air Force, but it has none. If it has had any impact on society at large surely there is something in the academic risk management literature, or at the very least some newspaper, that we could use as a secondary source. Willing to reverse my !vote if/when such sources are presented. As it is the article claims RiskAoA is 'one of the three prevalent risk management approaches' but does not back that up at all. If it somehow survives the AFD, it will need such claims to be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Added USTRANSCOM news paper article. TRANSCOM is not the Air Force, and not affliated. I will see if I can find the article for the Skywriter. Neither is Defense Acquisition University, or Defense AT&L. 74.96.151.44 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  So unaffiliated that they're located on an Air Force base and commanded by an Air Force General. We need something like the NY Times or the Washington Post, not more DoD sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That presumption is incorrect. You do not understand how the military is organized - and desire to lump the entire US Government, the AF or TRANSCOM, or DAU -ah, here* into one source is an improper stance. It is not one corporation, it is more like every building on every military base carries out a function, like a company, large or small. How about Marvel Comics? There are literally hundreds of comic book characters on Wikipedia who no one has ever heard of, whose only reference is one source, Marvel comics. Is there any reviewer from the DoD we can ask?

"*United States Transportation Command Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Air Force Material Command Air Force Research Laboratory Defense Acquisition University

These are all under the Department of Defense, but each organization has different processes, each, indeed many department within are independent. Each one of these likely has a budget and impact that far eclipses Marvel, and you could say RiskAoA is one of it's characters. You'd like the NY Times, the DoD wouldn't accept the NY Times, or Harvard without it's own validation process. You need to match the notability to it's origin, like you do, Piledriver (comics)GESICC (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to have to fall back on Wiki's notability parameter, since there is a cultural difference in possible sources: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Defense Acquisition University is the educator of the Department of Defense - something like ten million people are educated by this institution. The Undersecretary of Defense provides the policy for these same people. The news is notable to whom it is notable to, TRANSCOM posted it in there newspaper, etc., the program is Distribution limited, so this limits it's notabily, in much the same way as "Top Secret" would. GESICC (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Final-Please establish that these are not independent sources. There must be a criteria, which I will likely agree to. They are far more distinct than any two Universities, for example. GESICC (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Added book reference related to the COSO Enterprise Risk Management. This brings the total to: Six (seven) references. One, Historical documentation of the accomplishments of AFRL. Two an inclusion by a major risk proponent, COSO, as a notable tool. Three (and possibly four), an endorsement in a hierarchy above AFRL, The Defense Acquisition University and Air Force Material Command. Four, the instruction manual, by the author. Five, certification of the basic principles of operation, an independent review. Six, a secondary source by the the inventor and a co-author, endorsed by a Journal.
  

One must note the difficulty and notoriety associated with a program that is Distribution B, it established that the Air Force recognizes the the technology. This propriety limits release to the United States government, which remains a notable audience. GESICC (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Your 'book reference' is a collection of printed Wikipedia articles by a notorious content scraper - it has reprinted some old version of the Wikipedia article we are discussing here. Obviously not a source we can use to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• I did not know that, and was just stopping in to fix it. Though he does not seem to be quoting Wiki, and if he is published, and directing work towards COSO ERM, I am unsure how even "skimming" prevents him from publishing a work on the subject, publishing is publishing, and time tells.
  I would still like to know how the those referenced count as an unreliable source or a single source. It is like saying two companies are the same, or two universities are the same. News releases are of course germane to newspaper audiences. Only those with access to Distribution B are the audience, though, anyone interested in partnering for example, could access the technology for and reason consistent with Dist B.. The fact that it is Distribution B, should be sufficient to establish it's notability. It is a significant population and significant technology. GESICC (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Keep in mind that this software is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Clearly the Department of Defense considers it useful, but it is not clear that it is technologically significant for the general public. Regarding the claim that being "Distribution B, should be sufficient to establish its notability", I would like to know how many other things that are "Distribution B" have separate Wikipedia articles, and how many of them are considered notable simply because they are classified as "Distribution B". Biogeographist (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Keep in mind before MS Excel, grand technologies were kept track of on paper, so don't disparage, it is an excellent way to automate and improve the clunky Decision-making tools that rely on +/- and pros and cons. Indeed, it is an excellent way to apply appropriate algorithms to networked decisions, otherwise you can not perform adequate decision making except for the most simple and non-interacting of problems (this is easily proven by applying one of these tools to a scenario of networked computers, for example). For example, are two moderately and interacting problems more risky that a single difficult one? Current decision models can't explicitly tell you, RiskAoA can. The rest of your comment does not does not apply to notability. You should ask, how many things on Wikipedia are proprietary, and there because they are proprietary. Which would be just about every car, plane, etc., as Distribution B is a form of propriety. Is it notable because it is valuable enough to be protected? not definitive, but I'd lean toward yes.

The real problem is that, are things that have pieces of information that can't be written about, like classified programs, for example, notable? I'd lean towards, usually. Another question is, does a government program, still in existence and having the demonstrable characteristics (I have updated the references to secondary sources) of RiskAoA, notable? GESICC (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You would be leaning wrong. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to make sure that we have enough independent sources to present a topic in the proper context and representation. If we don't (and can't) have independent sources because a program is classified, that tends to support the idea that it is not notable. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a clarification about proprietary software vs. Distribution B: Proprietary software "is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person retains intellectual property rights—usually copyright of the source code, but sometimes patent rights." Proprietary software may be distributed very widely with an end-user license agreement. It is not equivalent to Distribution B, which according to DTIC's Distribution Limitations and Distribution Statements refers to the restriction of distribution to US Government agencies only, for any of various reasons. Proprietary software (for example, Microsoft Excel) can have a Wikipedia article when many reliable independent secondary sources (for example, sources independent of Microsoft) have written about how the software works, how to use it, why it is important, and so on. The fact that Microsoft Excel is proprietary software is not what establishes its notability on Wikipedia; it is the preponderance of independent secondary sources about the software that establish its notability. Biogeographist (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

By that argument, you seem to agree that it is notable, for reasons out side Wikiguides, which are not expected to cover every possible aspect of what is notable, or be anything more than guides. Clearly academic standards are only guides when confronted by another similarly reputable institution, aka the DoD. But given that RiskAoA is coming from another culture, separate and capable of it's own notability, what could possibly change your mind? We have seem many of your arguments above, all end in "but..."

You've stated it's not notable because it's Excel (instead or written on 1970's paper), it now has a secondary independent source, you claim they aren't independant -without checking to see that they are indeed independent you have challenged that it is notable because what is in it's distribution statements, failing that, challenged the distribution statements, you ignore that even dependent sources can establish a notable baseline - and this is even is a definitive source, not one that can be disputed at all, you blanket state that the US Air Force produces low quality products, ignore the quality steps required by JCIDS and Science policy of the United States, on top of all this, the majority of your complaints were fixed before you suggested deletion, in accordance with Wikiguidlines, and you suggested deletion anyway, outside Wikilines. Just what is good enough? GESICC (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not true that I "stated it's not notable because it's Excel". Clearly the Wikipedia notability guidelines don't say anything about Excel. It's not true that I "blanket state that the US Air Force produces low quality products". I have never said anything about the quality of US Air Force products. These statements, like your statement that my edits to the RiskAoA article are "vandalism" are false and seem to display the same pattern of false inductive reasoning displayed when you incorrectly concluded that I am "attacking RiskAoA" (I am not). None of these statements are true, and you may be repeatedly jumping to conclusions due to your close connection to the subject. Biogeographist (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my summary a kind of counter-attack, but this has nothing to do with the conversation, answering the objections, does. You still have not shown what a DoD notable could do to convince you it was notable, and avoided answering other questions. You make the unsustainable claim that DOD news agencies, and indeed other agencies aren't independent, when they are as independent as any other. But I can be convinced otherwise; show me how they are have the same mission or indeed opinions, or are biased towards one another. I am sure the leadership of the organizations would have a different opinion.

As I look at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463123&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, however, you must acknowledge, it far exceeds Wikinotability criteria. It is a definitive document, a historically defining document, one quite outside anticipatd wikiguidlines, and one Wikipedia should be glad to have. Can you tell me why this is not the case? The source is good, the notability is excellent, it is indisputable as a source, etc., etc.. Here is its introduction:

"AFRL Technology Milestones highlight significant scientific and technical accomplishments for visually-coupled acquisition and targeting systems for our warfighter to automatic spoken language translators for our international warriors. AFRL, headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio is the Air Force's largest employer of scientist and engineers, with partnerships in industry and academia, working to develop and transition affordable integrated technologies to support a broad range of future capabilities. This Technology Milestones book includes stories from the following categories: Support to the Warfighter; Sustainment; Emerging Technologies; Technology Transfer; and Awards Recognition." GESICC (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AFRL Technology Milestones is an annual report of Air Force Research Laboratory, which produced RiskAoA; this publication is not an independent secondary source that could establish notability. Defense AT&L magazine is published by DAU Press, part of Defense Acquisition University, a corporate university of the United States Department of Defense, to which the Air Force Research Laboratory, part of Air Force Materiel Command, is subordinate, and the relevant article in that magazine was co-authored by Gregory Tyler, who reportedly participated in the creation and documentation of RiskAoA at Air Force Research Laboratory and therefore is not an independent source. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines require that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. The aforementioned sources do not establish notability for the purposes of this AfD discussion, but they are reliable sources that can be used to mention RiskAoA in other relevant articles such as the articles on Air Force Research Laboratory and Risk management tools, where you have also written about RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it is far far better, it is a definitive document, what it says is beyond reproof, historic, definitional, period. It is not the subject of on going research, or someone's quack theory. But by all means keep claiming otherwise. But when you do, please demonstrate beyond some rule-set how it does not reflect reality, which Wikistandards are aiming at. You are misapplying those guidelines to the wrong kind of document. Tech Milestones is a report of significant technology of AFRL. By your rationale any of the creators of the magnificent technology AFRL produced contributed to this report. By your rationale, it is not a good reference. Your are claiming it is not a reliable source, this is not only wrong, but offensive. You are claiming it isn't notable, when the report selects what is notable, you are saying it isn't a reliable source which is just preposterous. You also fail to understand wiki's policy about authors is encouraging, not detrimental. Then you go off trying to say something incongruous about DAU, Defense AT&L which you also clearly will not research to understand.GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The AFRL Technology Milestones is an annual report. Annual reports of any organization are expected to proclaim how great the organization is and how great their products are. That's fine, but it is a primary source and does not qualify as the significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources required to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Biogeographist (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Although, continuing my previous sentence, even in other articles where you mention RiskAoA, you should declare your connection to RiskAoA on the talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We all understand that, and that was fixed before you made this declaration. Wiki doesn't exist to punish, indeed you should read the guidelines, before you delete. You jumped the gun by a long shot.GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have not declared your connection to RiskAoA on the articles on Air Force Research Laboratory and Risk management tools, where you have also written about RiskAoA. I am saying that if the article on RiskAoA is deleted your declaration of a connection to the subject will be deleted as well, so you should declare your connection to RiskAoA on the talk pages of any other articles where you have added mentions of RiskAoA. I am familiar with the deletion guidelines, and my decision to nominate this article for deletion was not "to punish", but was a result of my due diligence in searching for sources that would establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and I did not find any. You are repeatedly attributing statements to me that I never made (for example, you claimed that I said that the AFRL Technology Milestones report "isn't a reliable source" but I never said that). Biogeographist (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could declare your connection to RiskAoA on your userpage. Biogeographist (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Another news source is coming. The Skywrighter, so consider this another News source you can claim is not independent, just a question, though, how many non-independent news sources does one organization need?GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The Skywrighter is the official newspaper at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where Air Force Research Laboratory, which produced RiskAoA, is located. As for "how many non-independent news sources does one organization need", it depends on how many locations that organization has. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And if a fire occurs in a factory, and the local news reports it, it is not independent? GESICC (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Not if an affiliate of the local news started the fire. Biogeographist (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good, in that we agree. I have nothing to do with TRANSCOM, the Skywriter, or DAU, AFMC is the program office, and Defense AT&L are policy, notable for endorsing the product, the Skywriter is reporting locale news, to an acquisition community of 30,000, commanding trillions of dollars. So, now you may establish the entire Air Force and DoD can not be an independent source, notable or agree to wikiworthiness. To do that, you need to prove something that isn't true. Or you could look at the command descriptions, THEY ARE INDEPENDANT. I think the Skywriter is a subsidiary of the Cox Media. We're rapping up, I think. GESICC (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote an Air Force spokesman (via the Dayton Daily News) on the occasion of the outsourcing of the publication to Cox: 'The Air Force retains exclusive control over all contents'. So, not independent either. - MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have repaired the page, in accordance with Wikiguidance. Unless you can show the impossible, that the TRANSOM newspapers, DAU, Defense AT&L, AFMC and AFRL are one organization, with one story and opinion, the article is repaired. GESICC (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The lack of significant coverage of RiskAoA in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is not something you can repair by editing the article; it is a fact that is verifiable apart from the state of the article. The brief two-page article in Defense AT&L magazine was co-authored by Gregory Tyler, who was reportedly involved in the creation and documentation of RiskAoA, and therefore is not independent. Air Force Research Laboratory produced RiskAoA, so its Technology Milestones 2006 report is not independent. One of the sources is merely a PowerPoint presentation by Air Force Research Laboratory employees that briefly reviews risk management in general, but not RiskAoA in particular. These sources do not establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed that the aforementioned PowerPoint presentation is cited in the history section of the RiskAoA article as support for the claim that RiskAoA is "Validated, Verified and Accredited (VV&A) by AFRL" but the file does not support that claim. In fact, the file states the contrary: "The presence of a tool's name and description in this presentation does not constitute an endorsement by the US Air Force or any of its officers or personnel". The file also does not describe or discuss RiskAoA. This reference is neither relevant to the AfD discussion nor relevant to the claim in the article that it is supposed to support. Biogeographist (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Other notable tools with DoD pedigree: Technology_readiness_level#TRL_assessment_tools. This was established on the same day and in the same panel. GESICC (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on technology readiness level is sourced with documents from the governments of Canada, Europe, and the United States, as well as other sources independent of those governments; thousands of other sources not cited can easily be found. Therefore the notability of technology readiness level is easily established. Comparing RiskAoA to technology readiness level again highlights the severe paucity of information available on RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so it is not as popular, now you are saying it is a popularity contest, and again ignoring that the program is not allowed in Canada, Europe, etc., it it notable to the US Government. Since it is broader in application and approved in the same board, this argument is in RiskAoA's favor. GESICC (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is notability, not popularity. Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to the subject of separate articles and require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article on technology readiness level passes these guidelines; the article on RiskAoA does not. Biogeographist (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh my friend, @Biogeographist, you did not even look at the references, did you? We are talking about the TRL Level Calculator, which is indeed a wonderful tool; it has two citations from DAU, One from NDIA (via DTIC), one from the Army. They are perfectly good and solid references, and we'll agree to that, finally, but RiskAoA has the more and better. The TLC Calc. itself is a marvel, but unlike RiskAoA, it did not require any new theory or S&T development. GESICC (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines apply to articles; there is not an article on the TRL Level Calculator (the subject of the article you cited is technology readiness level), so there is there is no need to determine notability of the TRL Level Calculator. It is fine to mention reliably sourced tools within other articles on notable subjects, such as technology readiness level. Biogeographist (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And we agree, the TRL Calc. is reliably sourced. GESICC (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we agree on the reliability of the TRL Calculator references in particular. Some editors could consider the fact that they are not published to be a problem (they are grey literature). The reliability of the TRL Calculator references would require an inquiry that is more relevant for Talk:Technology readiness level. Biogeographist (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Biogeographist, I really would like you to read the notability, independence, and these other guides you keep using. Because the referenced material fits the bill. The sources are completely reliable sources, completely verifiable in content. Unless you are somehow saying DOD publications are not. You have news sources, Journal sources, and Historic sources, academic referrals, and so on. The most important thing in wiki is verifiable, according to wiki. These all have a independent human being whose job it is for you to contact and query. The organizations are quality organizations. You need not worry of the program office making a profit or benefiting in any way due to THEIR OWN references, it is a free product.

Most if not all are independent (see below) of the topic as well.

"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." None of the sources have any interest in the topic any longer. AFRL has no claim on the technology, DAU does not have any legal or financial interests, indeed, there is no way for the sources to profit off of the product. AFMC, perhaps, but there is no financial or legal interest. They don't get paid for maintaining it, or distributing it, and the only benefit of the office is distributing software that allows US taxdollars to be spent in a more effective way -- etc..

I will work on declaring my interest in the subjects. (I just saw the note, the topic is getting a little long to follow.)GESICC (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am using the same Wikipedia policies that I referred to in my nomination of this article for deletion: The article fails general notability guidelines: I cannot find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These policies state that "it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources." The extremely small quantity of sources available on RiskAoA do not qualify. This policy exists, among other reasons, in order to ensure that "articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure." Furthermore, "Wikipedia:Verifiability was created as an expansion of the neutral point of view policy, to allow information to be checked for any form of bias. It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct. Such articles tend to be vanity, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Not only is the RiskAoA article sourced (and, as I have shown above, in at least one place inaccurately sourced) with a tiny quantity of sources, it is also impossible to find the required significant coverage in multiple independent secondary, third-party sources that would establish the subject's notability and ensure the article's neutral point of view. The lack of neutral point of view, and possible vanity, is a problem given User:GESICC's close connection to the subject. The potential bias at work here was perhaps most obviously on display when, in the midst of this AfD discussion, User:GESICC edited the RiskAoA article in order to add an obviously unreliable circular reference published by the notorious Emereo Publishing, and then User:GESICC (wrongly) claimed in this discussion that this "book reference related to the COSO Enterprise Risk Management" established the notability of RiskAoA. The best explanation for this edit may be that a close connection to the subject is impeding User:GESICC's ability to evaluate accurately the independence and reliability of sources. The available sources on RiskAoA do not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent secondary, third-party sources that would establish the subject's notability and ensure the article's neutral point of view. Biogeographist (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the previously mentioned issues, there are financial conflict of interest issues. Presumably Gregory Tyler was paid to help develop and document RiskAoA: this qualifies as "a financial or legal relationship with the topic". Biogeographist (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There you go presuming, again. As a matter of fact, "he" was not, nor was he rewarded for it. &That does not qualify as a legal of financial relationship with the topic, read what that means please. The article has had all COI information removed, before you nominated it for deletion.GESICC (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Paid employment or other payment does qualify as "a financial or legal relationship with the topic", but if it is true that Gregory Tyler was acting in a purely unpaid voluntary relationship to the US Government at all times, then there is no financial COI. The other issues remain. Biogeographist (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Added another referenceGESICC (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The cited web page explicitly states that the list in which RiskAoA is included "does not reflect importance of subject". The list only suggests that the researchers happened to encounter and consider RiskAoA but does not indicate that the researchers considered it important or that RiskAoA is part of their final risk ontology. The cited web page does not cite any sources on RiskAoA and has only been archived in the Internet Archive since May 2015, so it is possible that RiskAoA is mentioned in the list only because the researchers encountered RiskAoA on Wikipedia (since references to RiskAoA on Wikipedia predate this web page). The researchers' risk ontology is not publicly available and its content cannot be verified. For all these reasons, I don't think this web page is relevant to establishing the notability of RiskAoA. Biogeographist (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Added another reference, citing its use as a 'product support planning' tool in the DoD (US government).GESICC (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Found only one source from HighBeam - Defense AT & L, but it's already being used in the article. When I see sentences like this in the lead - Members of the general public interested in RiskAoA technology may contact the Wright Patterson Public Affairs Office. - it makes me think this article was written to advertise, instead of content that has encyclopedic value.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This article should not even be being considered for deletion: It does not fit any of the 12 criteria, none of the references are original research, and are all verifiable (anyone can view the citation) from a reliable source. None of these are self-published, or from institutions that don't check facts, etc.. It has significant coverage under notability, as it is a DoD tool, and there are more than two references, with links, remember they don't have to be journals, and one citation is sufficient. As for neutral pint of view. Wiki policy is to fix, not delete.GESICC (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion, as stated in the first sentence above, because it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (number 8 on the list of 12 criteria that User:GESICC cited in the previous comment), also explained at length above. "Being a DoD tool" is not among Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Biogeographist (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah @biogeographist, you do know that the deletion criteria try to prevent deletion as much as possible, work out ways to ensure value is kept on Wiki.? Lets go over the notability guidelines, but first, let's rehash their foundations; verifiable, most of my citations are verifiable with a link or a phone call to excellent sources. They do not contain any original research. They are notable for three reasons, The Undersecretary of Defense magazine promoting policy endorsed the product to the DoD and the US Government. Two news sources also endorsed the product to to major organizations. Further, a academic institution took due diligence in contacting the DoD so that it could work with this restricted program. Significant coverage: Check. The sources are reliable, call them, find out. No DoD article publishes without a hierarchical review process. Remember the source does not depend on who cited it. Reliable: Check. Like it or not, I am not affiliated with any of the publishers, except AFRL, and there is NO vanity press: advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website. Independant and subjective: Check (or dispute it with the sources). Presumed means presumed. Finally, citing the fivr pillars of wiki, this leaves "Neutral Point of View" which you have control over, and "Wiki has no firm rules," and if wiki desires to get notable content from the DoD, and it does, it must relax the academic standard for a DoD one, which it also does.

So there is notability, look at the sources for being verifiable (DoD public relations EXISTS to help you), don't look up the sources, they aren't published on that circuit, look at the third party news and media. I think we'll finally agree. GESICC (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@GESICC: Well, you certainly seem to be convincing yourself that the available information on RiskAoA constitutes significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject! I'm not convinced, but we'll see who else wants to join us in this conversation and evaluate the evidence. (By the way, that reference to World Heritage Encyclopedia that you added to the article yesterday is a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article of the same name, hence is another circular reference: see also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org.) Just a few points about terminology: "Wiki" as a proper name refers to the original wiki created by Ward Cunningham, not to Wikipedia: see also meta:Wikipedia is not Wiki and WP:NOTWIKI. The no original research policy applies to Wikipedia articles, not to sources. Keep in mind that a subject that is not notable now (for example, RiskAoA) could become notable in the future, so the article on RiskAoA could be re-created in the future if the DoD approves wider distribution and if independent journalists, scientists, and/or historians write about the software and describe its relative innovativeness and impact in relation to other decision support software for risk management. Deletion doesn't necessarily mean forever. External events can, over time, make a previously non-notable subject notable. Biogeographist (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

>> more notable, than ~42% of Wiki artictles, by random sample of 72, somewhat objective. (PS) And just think, if someone just went through all those articles, said, "your article isn't sufficient," and marked it for deletion sans baseline dialog. GESICC (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm convinced, you have had me read Wikiguidence on all of this. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's right there, in electric ink, iaw all the wikirules you are using.GESICC (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Note: I came here because the creator left me a note on my talk: nonetheless, I am arguing to delete. I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The sources in the article are almost all rather obscure, but only one of them strikes me as being reliable: the Defence AT&L source. I might add that merely being a "book" does not necessarily make something a reliable source: it is the author, and the publisher, and the content of the book that makes it a worthwhile source or otherwise. Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability, and the article isn't written in an encyclopedic tone: it reads like advocacy for this obscure software. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Analysis of Alternatives.

AoA is not only a principle, it is a principle and specific methodology used solely within US defence procurement. Western defence procurement (second perhaps to UK civil nuclear power procurement) is the most expensive, yet inept, management discipline known. This is a hugely important area, despite its obvious secrecy. Few people are aware that it exists as a business discipline, even those carrying out the same role in a commercial environment are largely unaware of its techniques within the military cloister (and the featherbed of protection from utterly failed decisionmaking, career reward despite and why the emblem of the comfortable clubs around Whitehall should sometimes be a pair of left-footed mule-shoes rampant. I do not work in this field. As you might guess, I have at times worked within its consequences. I remain unimpressed by the stellar decisionmaking therein.)

We have an article here which is hardly illuminating to the general reader. It is vague, unsourced and woffles platitudes. It fails to either explain the context of why this is needed, or how RiskAoA goes about it. Despite that, I would favour Keep. So far, the push to delete seems to be coming primarily from one editor. Oddly some of the best explanation we have seen so far is on that talk page:.

I'm happy to keep this article on the basis of sources. It's not ideal, I'd like to see more independent sourcing, but (given the secretive nature of how governments choose to spend our money), it's as much as we're likely to see: it would be unhelpful to the encyclopedia to fillet too closely because of who's saying things, if the alternative is for us to report nothing. I would particularly like to see the inner workings of RiskAoA set out (see the talk: page). That's the content which is of most interest to those working in similar fields for commercial decision making.

On the whole though, I don't see this article on RiskAoA as strong enough to stand independently of AoA itself. As such, it would be better merged there, almost wholesale. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that RiskAoA could be described in some other article(s), but the article on risk management tools seems as appropriate as Analysis of Alternatives. (Related to User:Andy Dingley's commentary on military acquisition in general, I also notice that there are sections in the article on risk management devoted to information technology, petroleum and natural gas, and the pharmaceutical sector, but not to the military sector. Instead "AoA/RiskAoA" is mentioned in the project management section of that article, perhaps giving the impression that "AoA/RiskAoA" is commonly used across all sectors. There should be a section in risk management on the military sector just like the other sectors mentioned.) I've found that an interesting source on risk management in the US military is the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (June 2015). This document is mentioned in the article on project risk management, but that article also does an extremely poor job of differentiating between different risk management approaches in different sectors, and again RiskAoA is mentioned in that article in a way that could give the impression that it is commonly used across all sectors. Biogeographist (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Paradox: I wonder, what more is there to write or reference? Would someone write an article, "RiskAoA, still doing it's job."? What more would/could anyone say that isn't already in print? It was invented, verified and released to its audience. Can anyone suggest anything more that could be contributed to the state of the art? non-redundantly? Other Journals don't have access, and the audience is satisfied. GESICC (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your opening comment on Biogeographist's talk page suggests that RiskAoA has some "special sauce" of its own. As a practitioner in the field of decision support tools, I'd be interested to find out more. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fowl So we find out a COI on Biogeographist, on his talk page he says...

"I am also compiling a list of sources on other comparable decision support software, but I still need to read all the sources to determine which ones are relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)"

While on the RiskAoA talk page he says.

"I don't have any connection to the field of decision making; most of my edits on Wikipedia are in other areas...Biogeographist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)" This is just great. GESICC (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Reading sources on the Internet is not a "conflict of interest"—it's what Wikipedia editors do, especially when another editor says: "if you can show a project management tool that operated in that larger regime, that isn't simply accounting, I'd be very interested" as User:GESICC said to me earlier on my talk page. Reading sources about decision support software does not mean I have a connection to the field of decision making (I don't) any more than reading sources about Neal E. Miller (to mention the last page that I edited) means that I have a connection to the field of experimental psychology (I don't). User:GESICC has previously falsely accused me of "vandalism" and "attacking RiskAoA", when I have provided good reasons for my edits and I have no problem seeing RiskAoA mentioned in an appropriate way in the appropriate places; now User:GESICC is accusing me of having a "conflict of interest" because I am reading sources to answer a query that User:GESICC posed to me! Biogeographist (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. but rewrite for conciseness and readability. I'm not sure the specific details in the GNG have much applicability to government internal programs, b Considering the practical way we do source articles on government programs, this is sufficient.

Most of the above discussion is inapplicable to Wikipedia--there is not necessarily much in connection between significance in the real word and coverage in Wikipedia.(personally, I think this a fundamental error in our system, but it is nonetheless our system). There is never much point in comparing the article at AfD with other articles. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that do not really meet our requirements, many of which should be removed.

I think the real objection to the article is that it goes into too much technical detail and is ridden with bureaucratic language. The language and style can be partially fixed by rewriting, but some is inevitable in this subject (I notice that almost all our articles on government bureaucracy have the same defect: they copy the language used in the sources which is based on a formal system whose purpose is not readability. But the extent of the detail may be appropriate--we usually object only to the amount of detail in fields we are not interested in. To me the detail in many sports and popular entertainment articles is altogether absurd, but those interested there tend to think the detail in subjects of concern to me absurd, and the only pratical rule in a system like ours is to tolerate each other. (tolerating each other is the basis for the principle of consensus) DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Where has it been established that the general notability guidelines do not apply to government internal software? If that's true, then I don't see any basis for deletion, but I also don't see where such software is exempted. I'm not opposed to detail about this subject; in fact, I would like to see more detail, especially detail that explains why the software is so important and, if it is so important, why the software is not mentioned in a larger quantity of government documents such as the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (June 2015), the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Handbook (June 2013), or the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (June 2013). Biogeographist (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You can still see in the cached files where the OAS had RiskAoA, they removed it around 2009, for reasons I can tell you. The DoD will never (and should not) put a specific program into it's policy. The DoD largely follows "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." - George S. Patton. None of those guides will mandate any program, and if they did, it would be chaos; you would have people using the program they were mandated to use inappropriately. Also, things change, if they mandated one practice over another, they would be, indeed have been, stuck with obsolete practices and products.

@MrOllie, I updated RiskAoA to your requests. Dependant or Network risk and Universal risks are non-linear. I have added a citation or two since your objection. V/R GESICC (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@GESICC: Please provide a link to "the cached files where the OAS had RiskAoA"; I don't see which files you are referring to. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The lead doesn't even say what RiskAOA is, for Pete's sake. References 9 and 10 just mention RiskAOA as one of many tools. There are many one- or maybe two-sentence sections. Most of it is incomprehensible gobbledygook. There's nothing much here to recommend this as an article. Put it out of its misery. Lou Sander (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lou Sander Fixed, says what it is.
RiskAoA is software developed by Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Headquarters to select between complicated or high value decisions when limited information is available.
RiskAoA selects the best possible alternative within a trade-space of cost, project merit and risk.GESICC (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

GESICC (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• So judging by the comments here, the article is poorly written, not in encyclopedia style, and was rushed to the deletion. There remains some discussion on notability. What I will do based on the recommendations of Lou Sander and @DGG and others, will re-write it in the style of the Wiki topic Paxata which has a similar function, and similar references, and has been noted as a good wiki-article. This should also greatly improve the neutrality of the subject. In the meantime, it may be other articles will be coming. Europe ISO and CEU have evidently done due diligence to acquire a copy, which is also likely to mean it will be deregulated. GESICC (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This article was not "rushed" to deletion; we have been discussing it here every day for two weeks—not a rush job at all. WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD are the options to "rush" articles to deletion. This discussion has not been a unanimous consensus to keep, so you can't credibly claim that the nomination was without justification. Some articles get nominated for deletion multiple times (by different editors) over the years. If RiskAoA becomes more widely discussed by a wider range of sources, it may avoid that fate. Biogeographist (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge in very much reduced form to Analysis of Alternatives, or failing that delete. My own work involves risk analysis and government procurement, and I feel relatively comfortable saying that what this software does according to the article is rather unremarkable, certainly not much more than many of a number of comparable software tools, and as such (combined with the necessarily very niche nature of this topic) it's no surprise that we don't have the independent sources needed to pass GNG. Combined with the COI problems associated with the article and its contents, which are the sort of fancrufty minutiae normally only found in anime character lists or sales catalogues, I think we better get rid of this ill-disguised advertisement.  Sandstein  19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- a non notable software package. The article reads like a product brochure and does not communicate why it is notable. Better sources do not appear to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (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.