Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIMS Risk Maturity Model

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. There are two arguments being made to keep here: neither of them are particularly well-rooted in policy. One of them is by a brand-new user with no edits outside this subject, which long-standing convention suggests I am correct in discounting. Rhadow has written a strong nomination and the points raised in it have not been effectively rebutted. A Train^talk 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RIMS Risk Maturity Model (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)

Article describes a method and software to assess risk which is not yet notable.
The references provided are a walled garden of two WP articles (this one and its producer company LogicManager) and three websites or portions: the software company's website logicmanager.com, a product promotion website riskmaturitymodel.com, and the resources portion of an industry trade group Trade group resources tab.
Of the ten references given for this article, the following are either from sites controlled by the subject, authored by the subject, or are from press releases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) and (10).
A journal article (6) describes a positive effect from the use of the method, but appears not to assert notability according to WP:GNG.
The two articles have been created by two SPAs, one of whom is the only defender of the LogicManager article at its AfD discussion. The company does at least $15 Million a year in sales, but it's third in its marketspace. One of competitors has an article, the other not. It appears both articles were created primarily for the purpose of promotion Rhadow (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I’m new to Wikipedia, but I have done research in the past on ERM, and the RMM came up a lot in my research, so I am familiar with this subject and figured I’d take a crack at updating the page. Per Rhadow 's comment, I agree that the sources weren’t on par with WP’s independent sources stipulation. So I took the liberty of removing all sources that linked back to RIMS website, LogicManager’s website, and any press releases, and replaced them with independent third-party sources.

On to the aspect of your argument that deems this page promotional, I’m not sure I agree. RIMS is a non-profit educational organization, and the assessment is completely free for anyone to use, so this particular wiki page isn’t really selling anything.

On to whether the RMM is notable, I really think it is. The study you mentioned concludes that organizations who score highly on the RMM tend to be valued in the market 25% more than organizations who don’t. That is HUGE both for corporations in all industries and the risk management industry. The study was also conducted by a preeminent university in Europe in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It doesn’t get more independent and neutral than that I’d say. Access to this journal costs money, which WP does not have a problem with I believe, but in the interest of knowledge sharing, I’ve added a citation to a source that summarizes the study. Found here:http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/strong-erm-program-gives-companies-higher-market-value/

Another proof point of this model’s significance is that is has been recognized by the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget as a way organizations can develop an effective ERM program, the development of which is lawfully required by all agencies. I’ve added in a paragraph to the wiki page detailing this notability. Source here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-17.pdf Outlier11 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Observation -- Outlier11 the article reads, "Over 2,400 organizations have baselined their ERM maturity with the RIMS Risk Maturity Model for ERM." Given the author of the reference, the quote could as easily be, "I'm telling you that 2,400 organizations used a software tool my company builds, based on a method I invented, to generate a lead." As a new encyclopedia contributor, a member of the press, you need to be a bit more skeptical in your acceptance of assertions made by interested persons. Take, for example, the link to http://riskmaturitymodel.com. That's not an intellectually-independent reliable source. The page is clearly promotional; it is copyrighted by the organization that just had its article deleted for being promotional.

As to the parallels to the CMM -- that model was published in its entirety by the SEI, against which an organization could be assessed or audited. One was free to engage in a self-administered baselining exercise, but it had no meaning. In any case, the model itself was available for the public to see. I haven't seen the RMM itself. Based on the references in this article, I'm guessing you haven't either. Rhadow (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Rhadow, unfortunately, someone undid the updates I made before you had a chance to look. All of the updates are there now. The person who removed them did not understand that we are allowed to edit a page during the deletion discussion, in fact, it is encouraged per wiki guidelines. I have removed the line you pointed out as promotional, as I agree it is not necessary information. To your other comments, the RMM is also free and open to the public. Anyone can look at the model and take the assessment. It is not at all gated. So yes, I have seen it. Outlier11(talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- Outlier11 for a first-time editor, you are well acquainted with the WP protocol. The RMM is not published in any of the links. That would be a good link. When I tried to access the baselining exercise, it was not free. It was behind a paywall that required me to join RIMS. Rhadow (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Rhadow, here is the link to the RMM: https://www.rims.org/resources/ERM/Pages/RiskMaturityModel.aspx If you think it would be a valuable add to the page, by all means! When accessing the assessment, you don't have to join RIMS or pay any money to them, you just simply create a user name and password to access the RMM. This is pretty standard when accessing most published, copyrighted material. Outlier11

• Delete -- a non notable invention and part of a walled garden around LogicManager, since deleted. Both articles were being edited by the same set of editors, and the promotional intent here is quite clear. Beyond that, lacks sufficient in-depth coverage for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Risk maturity models are part of risk mgt theory and RIMS is well known in the field. Basis of AfD seem to be around the original editor rather than actual notability. Oblivy (talk)
• Delete - I was really hoping to find one keep today, but looking at the current sourcing and doing a Google search hasn't turned up enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be much here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:04, 4 October 2017 (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.