Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Der yck C. 15:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kitces

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

Note for an Admin - AfD Withdrawn without delete !vote to allow improvement per DGG suggestion. Finplanwiki - it is up to you to make the improvements, soon please.--Nixie9✉ 12:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vanity page of a working financial planner. I let it slide initially, but he has continued to add self promotional content to the point where the article just needs to be cut out. References the company bio and own articles, otherwise promotional industry blogs. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Nixie9✉ 13:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "vanity page" - I have posted several pages of notable people in our industry, including Marv Tuttle and Alexandra Armstrong, and think Kitces should qualify too. I'm sorry if I wasn't supposed to reference his company bio, but it had a lot of background information about him when I was getting started on this. Within our industry, he has already won awards and made well-known contributions to the industry that meet the criteria you set forth in WP:ANYBIO. I think he's the youngest recipient ever of a Heart of Planning award (not positive though). And as far as I know, User:Mkitces has only posted in the talk for his page, not updates to the article itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, you can also see Kitces has much research cited in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Michael+Kitces%22) and hundreds of books and articles (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Michael+Kitces%22). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this discussion about the Wikipedia page that was created for me, and will abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides, although as "Finplanwiki" notes I have not been logging into my Wikipedia account here to modify this entry about me. Regarding the discussion that occurred earlier about my involvement with NexGen and whether it should be part of my entry, I would note that the story that is relayed here actually came from the book "The History of Financial Planning" by Brandon and Welch at books.google.com/books?isbn=0470553790. See page 202. Mkitces (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC) MKitces[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - The article of Michael Kitces was recently discussed in an article on Advisor One (http://www.advisorone.com/2013/02/22/facebook-linkedin-heres-the-ultimate-web-marketing). The article was about someone who gets paid to edit Wikipedia. The article was also brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors on February 25, 2013 via the Signpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-25/In_the_media). This was the same day that this article was nominated for deletion. After doing a little research, I see that paid editing is not something that is encouraged on Wikipedia. I would like to point out that the article that I referenced on Advisor One used the Wikipedia article of Michael Kitces as an example of a financial planner who has a Wikipedia article, not an example of an article that was paid for. I will also disclose that although I do not have any other edits and have consulted with others about this page, I am not being paid to leave this comment. I will tell you that I am a member of the financial community and I know Mr. Kitces personally which could be a conflict of interest so I will refrain from doing any edits on the article itself. However, I will vote to keep this article and point out some reasons why Mr. Kitces is notable.

Let’s start with his article topic page on the Wall Street Journal (http://topics.wsj.com/person/K/michael-kitces/7185). He has approximately 15 articles that talk about him or use him as the person in the industry where the information for the article was obtained.

His column “Nerd’s Eye View” has been used (naming him personally) in stories in various popular financial magazines including Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timmaurer/2012/02/02/hey-financial-planners-do-your-job/), Forbes again (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/risk-asset-allocation-intelligent-investing-pricing.html), Forbes a 3rd time (http://www.forbes.com/sites/hanisarji/2013/01/06/more-estate-tax-changes-could-follow-fiscal-cliff-deal/), and Forbes again (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/07/26/anything-but-market-timing/), here is the Forbes topic page showing even more Forbes articles (http://www.forbes.com/search/?q=kitces), Financial Planning Pad (PR3 site) has a topic page showing numerous articles using him as the financial expert (http://fppad.com/tag/michael-kitces/), Morningstar article (http://advisor.morningstar.com/advisorregistrationpages/Login.aspx?vurl=http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/42987651/an-interview-with-michael-kitces.htm - You must have an account) (Morningstar also must be accepted by the Wikipedia community as they have their own article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morningstar,_Inc.), Financial Planning Association (http://www.fpanet.org/professionals/PressRoom/PressReleases/FPANAMESMICHAELKITCESTONEWROLEOFPRACTITIONEREDITOR/) (they also have their own Wikipedia article).

Oh, he is also an author as well as a regular contributor in financial publications. Here is the list of his 4 books on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Michael%20E.%20Kitces&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank).

Investment News (a PR6 website) cites him as being a “Power Tweeter” in an article about the top 15 financial advisors to follow on Twitter (http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120320/BLOG03/120319896). This website has also been used by Wikipedians more than 50 times in other Wikipedia articles so I believe this would be a reliable source.

Called an industry pundit and was the basis of information for a Medical Executive Post (PR 3 site) article about CPA’s (http://medicalexecutivepost.com/2011/03/23/mike-kitces-asks-what-can-financial-planners-learn-from-suze-orman-and-dave-ramsey/).

Although I did not read the book, he is part of The History of Financial Planning: The Transformation of Financial Services as he previously stated above (http://books.google.com/books?id=FXcKBKsPmAUC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=%22The+History+of+Financial+Planning%22+%22Michael+Kitces%22&source=bl&ots=atuLPOxlad&sig=HIVihXns_GTR2ZamdQZXMkJuqYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GbI0UYWzK8H1ygHCyIGIAQ&ved=0CHoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22The%20History%20of%20Financial%20Planning%22%20%22Michael%20Kitces%22&f=false). He is also in the book Index Investing For Dummies (http://books.google.com/books?id=WydRvswZ4N8C&pg=PA223&dq=%22Michael+Kitces%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=27g0UcbDMqigyAHK3oFY&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Michael%20Kitces%22&f=false), and many more found on the Google Books search, including Kiplinger’s (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michael+Kitces%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1).

Contributor to Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/retirement/mentors/stories?authorId=22396)

A contributor to Advisor One (PR5 site) but also has this article about him (http://www.advisorone.com/2012/05/09/michael-kitces-the-2012-ia-25-extended-profile) and this one too (http://www.advisorone.com/2012/12/17/is-kitces-right-on-when-a-cfps-fiduciary-duty-shou).

The nomination of this page was because it is a “vanity piece” which I am not sure that after reading the criteria for article deletion would qualify to be deleted. “Otherwise promotional blogs” including Forbes Magazine and sites with a high PR ranking. Not sure that it fails notability guidelines as there are significant and reliable sources for the article as named previously in my keep vote above. While the nominator may not believe that the sources in the current article are notable enough, a quick search of Google would have shown the notability of Mr. Kitces.

So basically this looks like someone nominated the article as they do not like paid editing. This article should not only be kept, but the nominator warned for using Wikipedia to illustrate a point about paid editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point).--RinkyDink2013 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)— ‎RinkyDink2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment 1 - As the nominator, I was unaware of the paid editor aspects of this article. I was the original reviewer when the article was created, and was prompted to AfD by recent additions only. Personally, I'm not overly put off by paid editors, if they avoid commercial promotion. The issue is that being the author of a blog, resulting in many appearances of the subject's name in reputable publications, is not remotely equivalent to those publications discussing that person. A NY Times reporter may have thousands of bylines without being notable. You need consistent discussion about the subject, with claims to notability. Being the author of 10 books and articles, a member of industry organizations, or editor of an industry publication are not notable. A scientific journal is a different matter. Having your book on a top list, cited by the supreme court, resulting in a major award - those are notable.--Nixie9✉ 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - I'm highly suspicious that two brand new editors are so passionate about this obscure financial planner from Tulsa, and are not connect to, or are not in fact Mr. Kitces.--Nixie9✉ 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE I'm not sure where this discussion of paid editors came from. I'm not a paid editor. I'm a practitioner in the financial planning world, who's written bios about several notable people from our industry, including Kitces (who was actually the 3rd, as I did Marv Tuttle and Alexandra Armstrong first, although none of those pages are flagged for takedown). As for notability, with all due respect it doesn't appear Nixie knows anything about who or what constitutes notability in our industry. The Journal of Financial Planning IS the equivalent of our highest "scientific" journal. The Heart of Financial Planning is one of our profession's highest awards (short of the P. Kemp Fain award). Kitces' research was just cited again this week in the Wall Street Journal (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304491492559684.html). As bio notability states, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Kitces has long since done that, including being mentioned by name in http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Financial-Planning-Transformation/dp/B007PM0F1K for being a co-founder of the NexGen movement. How can you say someone isn't recognized in his field's enduring historical record when he's literally in THE book that IS the recognized historical record for the field! And by the way, Kitces is in Maryland, not Tulsa. Finplanwiki (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 - The WSJ article is quite fortuitous, and does support your subject's notability. Notability is easy to measure, without me being a financial planner. If independent (not the awarding body) reliable publications are discussing him and his awards, that tells me those are notable. Regarding the JFP, he was practitioner editor, not editor, and even being the editor is not notable in and of itself (ie he would need to be independently discussed as an editor who had a notable impact). However, as it appears that his notability is improving, my main concern is that the majority content of the article is self referencing or fluff. As there have been no delete !votes, I can withdraw the AfD, if you would like to scale back the advertorial: basically the entire Publications advertising section (if the books or articles are reviewed and discussed, that's different), the less notable "Accolades" which is an improper section name - and shouldn't be a section at all really. Pretty much everything encyclopedic can merge into one or two sections. The mention of his blog is an ad, with no notability cited - but maybe you can find a reference for it. If an article becomes too advertorial, as is the case here, sometimes deletion and a restart is the best path - right now you can influence that with some scholarly editing.--Nixie9✉ 14:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, as I'm continuing to learn here. The "accolades" section I thought was important because those ARE many of the notability markers within our industry. Financial Planning magazine, Investment News, and Investment Advisor (which have all recognized Kitces notability) are the staples of our industry trade magazines (in addition to the JFP as our trade journal). I can certainly change the label - I literally copied it as a template from Harold Evensky, another notable in our industry. Similarly, I copied the list of books and Journal articles as a template from industry notable Dave Yeske, as a driver of Kitces' notability are his research and book contributions. If you have alternative suggestions about how to structure/label these, I can certainly change them; not knowing what else to do, I was simply copying templates from other Wikipedia profiles in our industry. In the meantime, I added some references for blog notability, as ironically there was one that Kitces tweeted out today. Finplanwiki (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are some things I rthat might help . First, the reason the last mentioned WSJ article does not shown notability is because it is not substantially about him. It discussing financial planning for retirement, and interviews several people, including him, and presents their different positions. He's one of them. Were it only or primarily or even substantially about him, it would go a considerable distance to showing notability. Second, being the editor in chief of a major academic journal is proof of notability for an academic, according to WP:PROF. Whether this holds for a professional who is not an academic ,with respect to a professional journal is undetermined.I think it might--but even in WP:PROF, it only applies to the editor in chief. Third, his books are very relevant: he may qualify for notability under WP:CREATIVE, as an author. What is needed here is reviews of his books. If they have had substantial reviews, he qualifies--with the provision that both the books were written with others, and it would need to be shown he was the principal author of both. I see some of the articles are in peer-reviewed journals. They should be separately listed, and the citations to each of them obtained through Google scholar or other indexes. . Fourth, winner of a major national award in one's field is accepted as notability. If the heart of Financial Planning Award is that important, it would help to have more than one article showing it--and the article cited never says the year of the award--it does not even clarify if there is only one per year. Fifth, Tuttle is notable because he has been president of the national professional association in his field. Armstrong's notability is uncertain. Finally, the general principle here is that it is not his work that proves notability, but what independent sources say about his work that proves notability. True, he ultimiately gets it from his work, but the only waywe can judge it is by seeing how others judge him in independent published works/ .

therefore, I would suggest closing the AfD as keep without prejudice to relisting, to allow time for rewriting; I'd be glad to look at a streamlined article. I decided it might be more help if I commented than closed it myself--I cannot do both. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 March 2013 (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.