Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 25 October 2020

Global Association of Risk Professionals

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Global Association of Risk Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I think this article has been deleted four times. Rather than deleting it a fifth time, I think we finally need a discussion to definitively determine whether we should have an article on it or not. Ritchie333 13:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I'm trying to find coverage that is both intellectually independent and substantive, and have so far been unable. I do not see how the sources in the article qualify; this looks like a database, the editors of this are associated with the group, and the business wire article reads like a press release. The others in the article are all a combination of unreliable, not independent, or insubstantial, and a search through books and news found nothing else. Perhaps there's industry sources that are genuinely independent. I'm saying "weak" because there's a considerable number of passing mentions, which is often an indicator that something more substantive is available. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as a WP:NORG fail. I tagged it as a WP:G11 the other day, and it was deleted, and now it's back. Per Vanamonde and my own searches, there are no independent sources available to establish notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: I have completely re-written the article and cited solely with secondary sources. All sources are independently verified and please see below why. Please, next time, read the article before you form your judgement.
    • @Jjj84206: Please clearly identify WP:THREE sources that are independent of the organization and constitute significant coverage of it. Please also assume good faith with respect to my assessment of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @AleatoryPonderings: Thank you for your reply. I absolutely appreciate everything you have done. We're all great Misplaced Pages editors that are trying to make this a better encyclopedia. Please also understand I've spent significant amount of time on this article already and I've never encountered so much resistance and scrutiny on a page I created. This was a very frustrating experience for me and I think I may want to take a break after this. That being said, please see:
        1. Philippe, Jorion (9 November 2006). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Professional. p. 43. ISBN 9780071736923. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> this evidences what GARP is
        2. Porter, Tony; Heather, McKeen-Edwards (11 February 2013). Transnational Financial Associations and the Governance of Global Finance: Assembling Wealth and Power. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 9780415659741. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> evidences what GARP is
        3. "2019 Annual Report". Annual Report 2019. Global Association of Risk Professionals. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> financial information on GARP which is independently audited by a 3rd party accounting firm.
        4. "Global Association of Risk Professionals Inc". Bloomberg. Bloomberg Inc. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> company profile from reliable source Bloomberg.
        5. Lore, Marc; Borodovsky, Lev (4 April 2000). Professional's Handbook of Financial Risk Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 14. ISBN 978-0750641111. Retrieved 15 October 2020. -> evidences on GARP, reviewed by 27 risk professionals/experts plus KPMG.
        6. Chen, James. "Financial Risk Manager (FRM)". Corporate Finance & Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> explains what FRM is.
        7. Reed, Eric. "What Does A Financial Risk Manager Do?". Yahoo. Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> explains what FRM is.
        
        The fact that you and others can't find good sources could be due to a lack of experiences/knowledge on risk management. I am a CFA with a master's in finance so I'm very experienced and knowledgeable and was able to easily extract these reliable sources. If you want, I can go on and on and add even more sources to this article. I have invested so much work and time on this article and I'm adamant to see it represent the best Misplaced Pages standards.Jjj84206 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jjj84206: None of the sources you provided (with the possible exception of the first, which I cannot access) are sufficient for notability, either separately or in tandem. Please review WP:GNG and WP:NORG for guidelines about what constitute appropriate sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Cannot access, so cannot evaluate.
2. Not WP:SIGCOV. The mention is "The Global Association of Risk Professionals provides a Code of Conduct and the Financial Risk Manager (FRM®) and Energy Risk Professional (ERP®) designations, as does the Professional Risk Managers’ International Association (PRIMA), with close to 80,000 members in 200 countries, offering the Professional Risk Manager (PRM) designation."
3. Not independent. It is, moreover, irrelevant for notability purposes that GARP is audited by a third party.
4. Not WP:SIGCOV.
5. Not independent; published by GARP.
6. Not clearly reliable, and not WP:SIGCOV.
7. Not WP:SIGCOV.

@AleatoryPonderings: I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NORG and the sources I've listed meet the reliability/notability:

1. Macon, Sophie. "FRM (Financial Risk Manager): A Beginner's Guide". 300 Hours. 300 hours. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> as per WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
   
2. "FRM® Certification vs. CFA® Charter: Make an Informed Decision". Kaplan Schweser. Kaplan, Inc. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> per WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
   
3. "2019 Annual Report". Annual Report 2019. Global Association of Risk Professionals. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> please review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and WP:PRIMARYCARE. It says, "...although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another." This is reliable, notable and independent and accepted by Misplaced Pages policies.
   
4. Lore, Marc; Borodovsky, Lev (4 April 2000). Professional's Handbook of Financial Risk Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 14. ISBN 978-0750641111. Retrieved 15 October 2020. -> No. This is NOT published by GARP. The publisher is Butterworth-Heinemann. Furthermore, as mentioned, it is reviewed by 27 professionals consisting of industry experts, professors and KPMG. This meets WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
   
5. Chen, James. "Financial Risk Manager (FRM)". Corporate Finance & Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> This is reliable as Investopedia, unlike Misplaced Pages, only allows editors who are industry experts to create articles. If you click on the profile for James Chen, , you can see that he's not affiliated with GARP and is a Chartered Market Technician with 20 years of industry experience. Please further see the reviewer of the article, Peggy James, , she's also not affiliated with GARP and has experience with non-profit accounting and a CPA designation. This source is clearly reliable.
6. Reed, Eric. "What Does A Financial Risk Manager Do?". Yahoo. Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> WP:SIGCOV is also met since it's an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
   I have provided you with way more than 3 reliable sources and strong evidence that this article is in compliance with Misplaced Pages. However, I would encourage you to hold the same standards on citations on existing Misplaced Pages pages, not just on this article. Thank you.Jjj84206 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that my opinion is unchanged. We need more than mere mentions of a company or organization to satisfy notability standards—we need WP:SIGCOV. As for the Butterworth-Heinemann point, technically yes—but the GARP logo is on the first page (see ), so it's clear that the book is not independent of GARP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: The sources I provided were more than just "mentions". Like I said, the annual report 2019 and the FRM Guide are two such sources. And also, the article I've written is only a brief overview of the organization. There doesn't need to be a whole book or article dedicating to the organization such as history, life, accolades...etc. No one cares and it won't meet WP:Notability. All I'm doing here is create an entry in Misplaced Pages that shows what GARP is because it's frequently cited in the financial world. I used the most neutral and brief language to avoid any promotion or advertising. This article is the most neutral, most cited, and most reliable one amongst all Misplaced Pages articles that talk about professional organizations because I made sure of it. You're entitled to your own opinion of course but if you're not familiar with this topic please let me help you.
Finally, just because a book cover has GARP means it's published by GARP? How did you come to that conclusion? That book cover also has KPMG on it - are you suggesting it's written by KPMG (it's not). That was such an inaccurate statement and I'm shocked that you wrote this. This also tells me you didn't take the time to read or even preview the book. How can you form an opinion without doing that? To give you an example, if a book is titled, "CFA Exam Preparation" and it has a logo of CFA Institute (because they have to under licensing agreement), then it automatically makes it a CFA book? If a professor makes a lecture and he shows a logo of GARP then he's automatically a GARP employee? It seems to me that your opinion is quite biased here and although I assumed you had good faith in your edits, I can't help to think you may have some motivations here to not see this go through. Finally, to give you a last example why your argument is extremely flawed, you're editing on Misplaced Pages, does that mean you're a Misplaced Pages employee and that this is published by Misplaced Pages? No, Misplaced Pages is a 💕. Please think about that. The book had GARP logo likely due to licensing requirements. If you want to talk about GARP and its FRM materials, you'll usually need to obtain Licensing Agreement or you'd be sued for copyright issues. On top of that, the authors likely wanted to show it's approved by GARP and KPMG since it adds credibility. It's like if you want to talk about Harvard University's courses as an official guide, you'll likely have to obtain permission from the institution or you risk getting sued. Jjj84206 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, according to the book itself, in the one-page chapter titled "About GARP", it states that it was written/edited by Lev Borodovsky and Marc Lore—the founders of GARP. Hence, not independent. This will be my last comment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that GARP is governed by a Board of Trustees, which aligns itself with shareholders, preventing conflict of interests from arising. This is not some small business or tech start up where the founder can do whatever he wants. This book is not about GARP, it's about Financial Risk Management. Your argument is severely flawed. Just because Steve Jobs is the founder of Apple, does that mean he cannot write a book about Apple or he cannot write about what he thinks about the smart phone market? According to your logic, the founder of Misplaced Pages (Larry and Jimmy) are not allowed to be cited on Misplaced Pages because they are obviously biased/not independent? These people are cited because of their background, industry expertise and experiences. The book is scrutinized by countless industry experts that are independent of GARP and the book itself isn't even about GARP. Like I mentioned, the book is audited/edited by 27 professionals and sponsored by KPMG (credible independent big 4 accounting firm, please search it up) and any of them have more knowledge about this topic than you and me. To conclude, given you cannot form a coherent/convincing assertion that the sources I used are not reliable, it seems like you can agree that I have produced ample amount of citations, including the acceptable use of the 2019 Annual Report (which is independently audited by a 3rd party accounting firm producing an unqualified opinion) meeting Misplaced Pages standards. Thank you for your contributions.Jjj84206 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Please let me help you understand why this article meets all criteria of WP:Notability. Your argument that the editors of this are unreliable is not true. Just because someone has membership in GARP does not mean they are biased when writing content. Did you take some time to read that book? You'll realize the entire book is talking about financial risk management (it's like a textbook), whether the contributors/editors have membership in GARP or not has nothing to do with the book. The book is about risk management, it's NOT about GARP. The only GARP part I cited is where they introduced the authors and talked about what GARP is. Your argument that just because the authors have GARP membership means everything they write is biased is strongly incorrect. That's like saying if someone is an editor on Misplaced Pages, then they are automatically biased to edit ANY article because everything will be biased. It makes no sense. Someone's expertise in a topic is not going to be influenced by whatever membership they hold. The GARP membership reinforces these authors expertise as a risk management professional. Their expertise is evidenced by their PhD, and like mentioned, the book was reviewed by 27 industry experts from major banks and KPMG Risk. In fact, if you're a risk professional, you most likely will have the FRM offered by GARP or PRM offered by PRMIA. FRM is like the CPA of accounting professionals, and the CFA of finance professionals. Therefore, this book is reliable and to be fair, that's all the source you needed to substantiate the content of this article. There's no promotional language (which I have taken a long time to audit and remove). I am not affiliated with this group and I'm not a FRM. I just find it very odd that this article has attracted such scrutiny from admins and editors and the moment it appears people want it deleted. To me the notability of this article is clear and the sources cited met all Misplaced Pages standards. Your focus here should be to improve the articles, not to prevent good and neutral articles such as GARP to be deleted. It's quite discouraging for Misplaced Pages editors and it demotivates people from creating good articles. There's no question that this article should be on Misplaced Pages.

To respond your other claims that there are other unreliable sources:

• The business wire article is solely used to cite the CEO being Richard Apostolik, if you were to delete this source, the other sources still substantiate this claim. Notice none of the business wire content was used in the Misplaced Pages article.
• Owler, CauseIQ, Open Yearbook and other pages with company profile shows the basic company information, such as the CEO name, financials...etc. This is reliable because it's only showing basic information. It produces no statement nor any information such as FRM designation or company history. These are only showing that this company is a non-profit and it meets the existence assertion. Please understand that GARP is a non-profit. That means you're not going to find public filing documents on EDGAR.
• Christopher Donohue, finance professional with Depaul University, needless to say, this is a reliable source.
• Investopedia: unlike Misplaced Pages, the authors are all finance professionals who are knowledgeable and experts. The article here by James Chen was also independently reviewed by Margaret James. For any languages that may seem promotional, I have completely removed them as per Misplaced Pages policies.
• Kaplan Schweser, Top Finance, 300 hours: reliable sources for the FRM exam and designation. These are reliable sources that are often utilized and cited for exam preparation and risk management professionals. All promotional languages have been removed but only content regarding the exam was retained. To be very honest with you, the most reliable source here would be directly from GARP website. When it comes to these situations, primary sources are the most reliable because they set the rules. To give you an example, if I want to cite IFRS 9, the best source would be directly from IFRS Foundation itself. But like I said many times over, the moment editors see "oh it's from a primary source so it must be unreliable" people start panicking and deleting. I really think the admins should have some training, otherwise they shouldn't be touching articles they have not much knowledge about. If you know admins with business/risk management background, please invite them over to contribute to this article.

Here are more reasons why this article should be kept and why it's notable/substantial:

• many Misplaced Pages pages related to finance/business and people link to this page. An indicator that this is substantial.
• the organization's revenue/expenses are in the millions USD. Do remember this is a non-profit organization, so this is even stronger indicator that this organization is notable.
• Cited by reliable sources, such as 2019 Annual Report, audited by independent 3rd party accounting firm. Also cited books that are peer-reviewed by KPMG, major industry firms, risk management professors (PhD), and experts with years of industry experiences.
• Notability is NOT temporary. Over the years, many editors have tried to create this article. The organization is continuously growing, both financially and in membership base.

Jjj84206 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep A significant trade association with more independent references than many similar organizations. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep a well know profession organisation Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• delete due to lacking multiple in-depth independent sources. I looked through the ones that have been covered and they are clearly lacking. I'm not what else there is that wouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage you to review the above discussions and why the sources all met Misplaced Pages policies prior to forming your opinion. If you do not understand risk management topics please also ask me and I'll be more than happy to help you understand. This article has more than enough (if not one of the best sourced article out there on similar organizations). It's cited entirely using significant independent sources such as books, guides, and annual report audited by accounting firm.Jjj84206 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that only people who understand risk management can have a valid opinion or that people who don't have to consult you first before having one is completely ludicrous. Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand, but it seems to me that you do not have sufficient knowledge in what constitutes as reliable sources and if you have even some basic sense of business, you would know that audited financial statements are considered reliable and trustworthy. I also have a long discussion above that indicates why every single source provided have completely met the standards which seems to have made consensus that this article was well-sourced. You do not have to go through me prior to commenting your opinion. But it's to be expected that editors should at least do some due diligence into the article they'd like to edit. Like I said, this is probably the best article out there in Misplaced Pages space of any "professional organization" that is free of bias, and completely written in neutral languages with no advertisement involved. Everyone should take this article as an example of what constitutes as a well-sourced, free-of-bias article and apply to other professional organization pages such as CFA Institute.Jjj84206 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything you said is drivel. Ypu should go find other things to do instead of badgering delete voters with utter nonsense, because its not helpful. Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with respect to my opinion. That was really disrespectful and you're not adding anything constructive in your statements. Your unprofessional remarks not only does not help us reach consensus of this article, but also creates a toxic and harmful atmosphere on Misplaced Pages. This discussion, as you know, is for us to debate, discuss and form a consensus. You did not provide any credible/reliable arguments and produced a biased statement saying all sources were unreliable when in fact they are, and then went ahead to attack editors with insults. This was a very disappointing turnout that further enforces my point of view that this article must be kept because of editors that blindly just want articles deleted without any significant and helpful comments.Jjj84206 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates