Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIMS Risk Maturity Model

RIMS Risk Maturity Model

(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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]