Deletion of Global Association of Risk Professionals

Comment: and '''salt''' as a  fail. I tagged it as a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG||WP:G11||WP:IS)

Comment: Please let me help you understand why this article meets all criteria of otability. Your argument that the editors of https://books.google.ca/books?id=V4KLbnIOQdQC 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

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 onsensus, but at most you can clearly see that there’s  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:NOCON)