Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Association of Risk Professionals


 * 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 no consensus. The amount of badgering and non-productive commentary in this discussion is disappointing Spartaz Humbug! 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Global Association of Risk Professionals

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 (talk) (cont)  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)

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.
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * Thank you for your reply. I absolutely appreciate everything you have done. We're all great Wikipedia 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:

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 Wikipedia standards.Jjj84206 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cannot access, so cannot evaluate.
 * 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."
 * Not independent. It is, moreover, irrelevant for notability purposes that GARP is audited by a third party.
 * Not WP:SIGCOV.
 * Not independent; published by GARP.
 * Not clearly reliable, and not WP:SIGCOV.
 * Not WP:SIGCOV.


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


 * 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.


 * "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.


 * "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 Wikipedia policies.


 * 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.

I have provided you with way more than 3 reliable sources and strong evidence that this article is in compliance with Wikipedia. However, I would encourage you to hold the same standards on citations on existing Wikipedia pages, not just on this article. Thank you.Jjj84206 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 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 Wikipedia, does that mean you're a Wikipedia employee and that this is published by Wikipedia? No, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. 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)
 * Chen, James. "Financial Risk Manager (FRM)". Corporate Finance & Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> This is reliable as Investopedia, unlike Wikipedia, 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia (Larry and Jimmy) are not allowed to be cited on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors and it demotivates people from creating good articles. There's no question that this article should be on Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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: Jjj84206 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * many Wikipedia 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.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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 Devoke water   (talk)  11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:40, 24 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Wrong. You going off repeatedly about how people don't have sufficient knowledge to have opinions is not assuming good faith, is disrespectful, and doesn't add anything. Responding every single vote with long commentary about what the voter has or hasn't done Etc. Etc. is what doesn't help us reach a consensus. Your know it all attitude about this is what creates a toxic and harmful atmosphere. No article "must be kept", they are only kept if they are notable. Period. And that's for the voters to decide on their own, without your judgement or interference. Like I said, let the AfD play out and go find something else to do in the meantime. It will go how it goes, and without you mouthing off everywhere. Everyone knows what your opinion is at this point. There's zero reason to repeat. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I'd invite you to read WP:CON where it states: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", under WP:AFD it further states: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." At the very top of this page, you can also see that he said, "I think we finally need a discussion to definitively determine whether we should have an article on it or not." The purpose here is for us to reach a consensus through debate and discussion. By telling me that I should not try to convince you to form a consensus is a suppression of everything that Wikipedia stands for. Please also take a look here at WP:AFDEQ:


 * The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. I was merely pointing out that you made a statement without any back up.
 * Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.


 * Contrary to everything you said, this is NOT a vote. We are building consensus here. You're supposed to convince me rather than using assertive languages to "leave you alone" and "stop badgering". As policy indicates, I should be engaging in a thoughtful debate but if you refuse to, and only want a unilateral conversation where you post things that are one-sided with absolutely no supporting details, then went ahead to attack other users out of embarrassment, most likely it will turn this article to "no consensus" then result it being kept.Jjj84206 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The analysis of the sources leans delete but keep votes by assertion or that are just statements are weak. It would be helpful for further discussion to establish the policy based argument that the sourcing is sufficient
 * Keep: a significant organization / designation in finance (e.g., and certainly more so than numerous others not up for deletion); rather clean-up the issues, than delete the article. Fintor (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: definitely seeing strong admin bias here. This article was well-sourced with notable experts and reliable materials. Based on the discussion and consensus above, leaning more towards keep. At most the results are leaning towards "no consensus" which is still "keep", there's no indication that it's leaning delete. I'm hoping the editors with more financial background, please step up and help either contribute to the discussion here or to the article. There's a strong bias here on Wikipedia (and I suspect some politically motivated or from rival professional organizations) to delete this article no matter how well-written it is.Jjj84206 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't make un-substantiated claims about the admins, or anyone else, being politically motivated or involved with "rival organizations." It's really not OK. Especially when it comes to the admins. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * based on our conversation above, and your personal attacks towards me, I really think you're the least suitable person to tell what's ok or not.Jjj84206 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which personal attacks would those be? The ones where you said repeatedly that my opinion shouldn't count because supposedly I didn't know what I was talking about and didn't review the article? Because, those where the only personal attacks I saw in our conversation. Anyway, "it's cool if I say admins are paid shills because past conversations with random user" is a really weak defense and there's really nothing else to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Everything you say is drivel", "Stop badgering others", and telling me to not engage in conversation/debate in accordance with WP:CON was totally inappropriate. Like I said this place here serves as a platform to engage in lively discussions and where editors try to persuade others. Yet the moment I try to give you evidence of why this article should be kept. You got super defensive then proceeded to say no we're not supposed to engage in discussion, and you further refused to listen any well-justified reasonings and claimed that I have no basis in my statements. Your unsubstantiated claims above is equally, if not more, inappropriate.Jjj84206 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your the one that refused to listen by saying my opinion wasn't valid because I didn't know anything and because I'm not in the industry. I listened perfectly well to you repeat it 7 times. I just disagreed with you that me being in the industry or not matters, and I know for sure that I know what I'm doing. Also, both of those claims were exactly what I referring to when I said what you were saying was drivel. And I 100% think it's drivel to say that only people in the industry can have valid opinions in an AfD. Especially when done in the personal, dismissive way you went about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read above, I have never said only people who are in the industry can edit. I'm not a FRM myself so I have no rights to say that about you. I said, "If you don't understand risk management, please let me help you". Notice the word "if", and that's because you merely provided one sentence saying that you don't find the sources reliable. With little amount of information and the 1 sentence you provided, I surmised that you likely did not understand some accounting or risk management concepts (and no, you do not have to be in the industry at all), because if you do, you'll realize that things like audited financial statements with unqualified opinion is considered reliable along with the aforementioned book sources written by people that have PhD or CFAs. This has nothing to do with whether someone can edit because they are in risk management or not (such as myself, not in risk management), it's a matter of whether you know if something is reliable. If you have read my comments above 7 times, then you should know that many users here, the moment they see "primary source" they automatically label it as "unreliable" which is why I explained to you with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and WP:PRIMARYCARE. My initial comments was out of kindness where I am trying to ask you, if you don't understand something, let me help you understand why the sources are justified. Perhaps you took it the wrong way and it's very hard to convey one's true tone on the internet, but my initial comments were not malicious but you clearly took it as "only people who understand risk management can edit", which is not true. Now, if you really think the sources aren't reliable, tell us why, and help make this article better. I removed all advertising languages, added way more sources than this article needed using countless reliable sources. I've seen way more discussions and tons of Wiki articles that are in way worse state resulting in clear "keep". GARP is a very significant organization that even people outside of risk management knows, almost second to CFA, and I'm quite surprised that such notable organization gets deleted 5 times in the past. You can also observe that every time it gets created, no matter the state of the article, it gets immediately speedy tag to delete. I've never seen anything like that happening to any other professional organizations. My opinion comes from the observation that this article, despite it being at a very good stage with more editors supporting "keep", seems to attract extremely high scrutiny that even when a "keep" consensus is formed, still gets re-listed. What's even more frustrating is that most editors aren't open to conversation or help substantiate the article. That being said, I've seen your other comments regarding article deletion nominations and you seem to be a good editor. Let's settle this and I do apologize if you initially took my words the wrong way. But do let me know how I can convince you to reach a consensus for "keep".Jjj84206 (talk)
 * That's fine. You should sign under the comment below this where you added the sources if your the one that added them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Global Alphabet Soup: Internationally Recognized Professional Designations in Finance, Journal of Financial Education 38 (3/4), Fall/Winter 2012, 18-32
 * Update: Thanks to, we now have 3 more reliable sources to the article:Jjj84206 (talk)

Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2345545

Source Type: Academic

Institution: Brock University, Goodman School of Business

Author: Ernest N. Biktimirov, Ph.D., CFA (independent of GARP)

2. Risk Managers Get Certified: As Profession Grows, Demand Increases for Standards-Setting Examinations

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304370304575152212605720290

Source Type: Public

Institution: Wall Street Journal

Author: Jeremy Greenfield (independent of GARP)

3. The Rise of the Chief Risk Officer

Link: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1505qj433jnpj/the-rise-of-the-chief-risk-officer

Source Type: Public

Institution: Institutional Investor (magazine)

Author: Leanna Orr (independent of GARP), experienced journalist (see her other articles: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/topic?author=Leanna%20Orr)


 * Keep, because it Appears quite notable per the sources and argument folks have brought to this process, Sadads (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources in the article and the additional references identified since this AfD has started demonstrate that the topic meets the notability standard.
 * Weak Delete as per User:Vanamonde. I am not favorably impressed by the other arguments either for or against.  The length of the walls of text in favor of keeping is typical of a weak case repeated.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dear admins, this article has been listed for 3 weeks already. By now, most editors who would participate have likely participated. It seems like the result is leaning more towards Keep with 6 users commenting keep and 4 deleting (2 weak delete). Obviously, this is not a vote as per WP:Consensus, but at most you can clearly see that there’s WP:NOCON with one side not able to convince the other side. This article also provided way more than 3 best sources, including academic journals, university, and reliable finance press such as WSJ, Institutional Investor, Investopedia...etc. There were no advertising/promotion languages included. The discussion above were insightful and reflects proper Wikipedia discussion for deletion nomination. It seems clear to me that this article is “keep” or “no consensus”, at least for the time being. In the future, users are free to re-submit deletion request again or further improve the article.Jjj84206 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2020 (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.