- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- LogicManager (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)
Fails WP:NCORP. Many of the references are dubious or trifling, example
- The list of awards cited to non-notable publications, "Best Place to Work", N of 50 "most valuable companies", etc.
- "LogicManager: Offering User-friendly ERM Solutions" published in CIO Review which is just a long interview with the CEO pumping this firm. That is his fiduciary duty but not ours to offer another forum to publish these things.
I attempted cleanup, but was reverted; so if this is an advertising magnet WP:TNT also applies. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear to me that this is a promotional piece, architected to get this firm and its product to the top of Google searches (upper right hand corner). Best practices means that the leaders in a field are using the practice. There is no indication anywhere that the software or its methods are proven. The subject does well in interviews, but the claim is still empty. The same criteria should be used on RIMS Risk Maturity Model, another bogus article designed to support this one. The article promises that the Risk Model is free. It doesn't appear so. http://riskmaturitymodel.org/ is no org. It's a site controlled by LogicManager. Don't get fooled into participating in this well-authored promotional scheme. Rhadow (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hello, I have considered your concerns very carefully and have reverted the page back to a previous version that did not violate the terms you are citing, or at least were not flagged as violating any terms. I hope this will resolve the issue and that the deletion tag can now be removed. If there are any edits you wish to make to this version, please do so. ANicoleJ (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ANicoleJ, this is your first article, and a fine piece of work. I am not worried about violations. My concern is whether this company belongs in an encyclopedia. The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston. Looked at in this light, what Forrester, or Gartner, or CIO magazine says are not compelling. Did you read the Forrester report? It costs $2,495. Journal of Risk, likewise, is behind a paywall. The CIO article was a puff piece, an ego-stroker. I recommend you read WP:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. After repeated references, paywalled publications, puff pieces, and links to LogicManager controlled sites are eliminated, the cupboard is bare. Rhadow (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that articles use freely accessible sources. The Forrester report is the best source in this article. While researching this earlier, I downloaded a pdf of a 2016 Forrester report (can't remember where I found it, but it wasn't by paying $$$$.) It scored LogicManager at 4.4/5.0 (not a perfect score) on "Customer references" which isn't exactly an "award" in any case. More relevantly, it also stated that LogicManager had more than 2300 GRC customers and that all vendors in the report had at least $15 million in 2014 revenue. That's something, but considering Navex Global (AfD) and BWise are listed in the report as having an even larger market presence and still got deleted, it isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Furrykiller (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a wp:promo page on a private company that is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. At the moment of this iVote, the article content is strictly promotional, and I don't believe that the article can be improved through regular copy-editing, as the sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of an apparent walled garden which also includes RIMS Risk Maturity Model; both articles have been edited by the same single purpose account that created the Maturity model article. So, it's a "delete" all around for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotion piece, not notable company per WP:Corp for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violation of WP:NOTPROMO, would require complete rewrite to become encyclopedic and even then, the subject is unlikely to be notable. Rentier (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rhadow, I would like to address your comment “The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston.” I believe the company has had a demonstrable effect on the business world especially. The research study in Journal and Risk by Queens University has proven that organizations exhibiting mature risk management practices realize a potential value growth up to 25%, confirming the value of strong enterprise risk management programs. “Mature” in this context is defined by the RIMS Risk Maturity Model which the CEO of LogicManager authored and donated to RIMS. I believe this connection between enterprise risk management and every organizations’ value is a huge contribution to the business world.
- As the current version stands, there are only third-party sources that are very notable and trusted in the GRC community. The study found in Journal and Risk is a peer reviewed academic study. Forrester and GRC 20/20 are independent research firms. RIMS is a non-profit dedicated to educating the community on GRC. Enterprise risk management is a growing field, not familiar to many, so I understand how discerning which sources have proper depth can be difficult in this case, but I assure you that these are preeminent sources in the industry that not only stand out as non-biased, but demonstrate the effects LogicManager has had on the business community. Therefore, the company is not in violation of WP:Corp which states “If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists,” because the company has received recognition from notable independent sources. As for the CIO Review article, it is only used in this context to provide objective information about what the company does, not how well they do it.
- I hope this has allayed the main concerns of this discussion regarding the value and credibility of the information provided by LogicManager’s article. ANicoleJ (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you mentioned "The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" in the Journal of Risk and Insurance. Do you have access to it? For me they want six bucks to read it. It is indeed a legit journal and has costs to cover, I guess. Fortunately, I have access to a free PowerPoint by the same authors with the same subject in the title; I'm pretty sure it's a synopsis of what's in the full paper. They mention "Logic Manager" (as they spell it) exactly twice, and not in any detail about the company. Rather it appears to be a data point that the RIMS Risk Maturity Model is being adopted in business settings. So as far as this deletion debate goes, it appears to be null. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your question, Bri, “"The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" doesn't seem to have any bearing here. can you clarify why you think it should?” I believe it does have bearing because Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, wrote the RMM based on LogicManager’s framework. The study in question is based on the RMM. While I cannot share a peer-reviewed academic journal, I can point you to the landing page where the RMM resides, https://www.rims.org/resources/ERM/Pages/RiskMaturityModel.aspx You’ll see this in the footer: “RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management was developed with the support of co-developer Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, Inc. LogicManager is a leading developer of ERM solutions and creator of its own innovative risk maturity model. LogicManager, based in Boston, donated its intellectual property, expertise and services for the development of the RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management.” As you can see, LogicManager donated the RMM to RIMS, which is why the assessment is hosted on RIMS’ website. Without LogicManager, there would not be Risk Maturity Model, which has made an immense impact on the GRC industry and the business world.
- But this is only one of the points of evidence that makes LogicManager a notable organization. Let’s not lose sight of the others such as the company’s recognition by Forrester and GRC 20/20, which recognize the company for the software they created. The value award they received from GRC 20/20 was in recognition of how one company, Winona Health, was able to use LogicManager’s software to achieve a significant and demonstrable effect on their business performance. Source: http://grc2020.com/product/winona-health-value-achieved-in-risk-management/ ANicoleJ (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.