Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces (2nd nomination)

Michael Kitces

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces
• Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces (2nd nomination)

Michael Kitces (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)

Further to the original AFD, I propose that this is a vanity page created by and serving to advertise User:Finplanwiki and his real life business. Furthermore, this editor is contributing WP:OR to the encyclopedia and inserting material citing references which are WP:SPS - see this edit at Roth IRA. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know why this is up again. We've been through this once already. I've written several biogrpahies for advisors in our industry, Kitces is just one of several I've done. Are you going to propose taking down the other biographies I've written as being vanity pages too, in case I have multiple personalities? :/ Finplanwiki (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - To be clear, the previous AfD was not adjudicated. I withdrew it as a courtesy to allow improvements, which have not been made. And yes, the other biographies Finplanwiki created as cover, should be considered for AfD. There are no claims or citations supporting notability other than being female or having a job. Sorry.--Nixie9✉ 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We have indeed been through this once already. However, after your activity at Roth IRA I am reopening it. I note that first time round, the editor voting to "speedy keep", RinkyDink2013 had one contribution to their name, and funnily enough, it was the vote to speedy keep the article. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - This article started as a vanity piece. DGG suggested giving him time to make it encyclopedic. This has not happened, and in fact much more fluff has been added. In my opinion, Finplanwiki is more than connected to the subject. Next he (by he I mean Michael Kitces) will bring RinkyDink2013 or Mkitces out of retirement to vote for speedy keep. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF (practitioner editor is not the editor of an academic journal - it is someone who writes for free in exchange for self promotion).--Nixie9✉ 16:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mkitces (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC) One of my readers just pointed out this discussion to me, so I just wanted to chime in quickly to say that while I'll obviously stand by whatever the Wikipedia moderators decide, since it's out of my control anyway, I didn't write this entry. I did start making modifications shortly after it got created by whoever did it last year when it showed up in my Google Alerts, but stopped adding once I was told by a friend that it's against the rules here for people to add to entries written about them on this site. Since then I haven't touched it, for all the no-self-publishing reasons being discussed here. Obviously I can't really speak to the notability issue since I'm clearly biased. :) But I was just included in Investment Advisor's 2013 list of the most 25 influential individuals in and around the advisor business (http://www.advisorone.com/2013/04/29/the-2013-ia-25-special-report).

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Although I wrote all this up last time, once again for AfD... this is not a self-publishing vanity page (it's one of several bios I've written up for people in our industry, as you can see in my history), and according to WP:ANYBIO, notability is evaluated based on significant awards and honors, or made widely recognized contributions that are part of the historical record to his/her field. Our industry has three major industry publications that provide awards recognition: Financial Planning, Investment Advisor, and Investment News. Kitces has been recognized, separately, by all of them, including twice for Financial Planning, twice for Investment Advisor, and once for Investment News, over the span of 7 years. In addition, he received a Heart of Financial Planning award from the industry's largest association, which is awarded specifically for "extraordinary work contributing and giving back to the financial planning community" which for him was founding NexGen. And Kitces's role in founding NexGen was also acknowledged in "The History of Financial Planning" which is THE book that outlines the historical record for the field. If notability is based on "making widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record to the field" and this person's contributions are explicitly recognized through every major industry publication, the awards of its largest association, AND the actual book that IS the enduring historical record of the field, then why is this entry still being questioned for notability??? Finplanwiki (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
And regarding Nixie's comment, the last AfD suggested adding citations for the articles, so I did. If there's more to be added, say what else is supposed to be added. I'm sorry I do financial planning for a living, not train in how to write encyclopedias. Doing the best I can here. As for the claim that "fluff" was added since the last AfD, I'm sorry but that's total BS. I added citations as specifically asked in the last AfD, within a week of the AfD being withdrawn, and haven't touched it since, just look at the history of the article!!! Finplanwiki (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fluff Illuminated: Nearly all of the information in the article ultimately cites original research, or the subject's mere inclusion in long lists. There is one true piece of editorial coverage of the individual (which is then reiterated in 4 separate References[2]). Notability is not derived from self publication - even if extensive. Key citations reference his company website and his actual CV, and the rest reference his own research; self serving statements include "He is known as a prolific writer in the industry", "Kitces has been dubbed a "Deep Thinker" and "Technical Guru", "In addition to the above Journals, his research...has been cited extensively in the industry" (referencing its citations his own newsletters); the listing of a dozen WP:OR articles; "Accolades" section listing 5 20+ person lists which include his name - none of which are an actual individual award. The simple fact is that one genuine editorial reference is overwhelmed by the original research attached to it. There is no repeated editorial coverage of the individual. --Nixie9✉ 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re- Fluff Thank you Nixie for the feedback. Think I'm finally starting to understand the issue here. So you'd rather see this reference (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304491492559684.html with the last section about Kitces's research on pegging withdrawals to stock valuations) rather than this reference (http://www.kitces.com/assets/pdfs/Kitces_Report_May_2008.pdf which is the actual research on pegging withdrawals to stock valuations)? In your view, the former is a reference, and the latter is "fluff"? The way I was taught in grad school was the exact opposite - third-party media discussions are "fluff" and real references go to the original source. I was actually trying NOT to include discussions like the WSJ reference on the research as that's pure fluff to me, but it sounds like your view is that that's the "right" kind of reference and the original source is not? I can certainly try to adjust it that way if that's what you've meant by "more encyclopedic" - to me, more encyclopedic meant more references to original sources, not fewer!! I think I was actually working harder to strip out what you were looking for?? If you can confirm I'm understand right - more stuff like the WSJ references about the research, and not the actual research - I can try to adjust what I wrote next week. Finplanwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree fully with Nixie9. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists, technologists and academics around the world engaging in and publishing research involving far more "deep thinking" than Michael Kitces's in the frankly intellectually un-challenging field of financial planning, yet they do not get their own Wikipedia page full of flowery language describing their activities, publications and supposed mental capacities. Financial planning is a service industry that works off commissions, and just because a member of it is active on its conference circuit and writes for the industry's internal newsletters, that does not make them notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re- Red Hat And as for Red Hat's comment - seriously, learn ANYTHING about what real financial planners do before you criticize it, ok? Financial planning IS NOT ABOUT COMMISSIONS. At National Association Of Personal Financial Advisors we're celebrating the 30th anniversary of doing real fee-only financial planning. Our firm accepts NO COMMISSIONS, and no NAPFA planner accepts commissions. Globally commissions have already been banned from financial planning this year in the UK and Australia, and we're working on getting it done here in the US. Financial planning is an entire profession unto itself, with its own body of knowledge and educational requirements, a fiduciary standard for all advice, and recognized international standards under ISO 22222. I'm sorry if you may have had some terrible experience with a bad commissioned salesperson posing as a financial advisor, but that's not what REAL financial planning is about. Saying financial planning is an unprofessional unchallenging field because someone once sold you a commissioned product is like saying medicine isn't a real field because there were once snake oil salesman. The doctors cleaned house, and we're doing it too. And I really don't see how it's your personal call anyway about what fields do and don't qualify for Wikipedia. It's a field, it's a recognized field under international standards with almost 150,000 people certified, and our profession is as entitled to have our people recognized as any other field. Having an issue with someone I wrote up because you don't think he's notable is one thing (though given your apparent ignorance of financial planning, it's no surprise you don't understand who's notable in our field either); trashing my entire profession is another and entirely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign Finplanwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Commissions/fees - whatever. My point is that your industry is composed of individuals who sell their services, and you are coming here on Wikipedia and creating what are basically advertisements for those individuals. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The new WSJ article is indeed valid editorial coverage, and yes, you must refer to the editorial coverage, not your original research. That's how Wikipedia works, plain and simple. Although I wouldn't call your coverage "repeated" yet, you can now say it has continued. I've edited the article to remove all of your original research, references to your own blogs and employer site, and unsubstantiated fluff, like accolades. If you can live with this streamlined article, which more closely adheres to Wikipedia standards (ie referencing your personal website & CV is verboten), I personally can overlook the borderline notability, despite being WP:TOOSOON. If you insist on adding exponential fluff to borderline notability, I and I expect others, are driven to be policy sticklers.--Nixie9✉ 15:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I can live with Nixie9's revamp. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-Nixie Nixie I struggle to understand how that's "more encyclopedic" but thanks for finally helping me to understand that's what you've been looking for. Still not my research/blogs/etc - once again, I read the guy's work and we use his stuff regularly in our practice, but I'm not him (he?). I would still suggest that his Heart of Financial Planning Award and NexGen founding be included in the article, as that's really some of his greatest notability in the industry. I will try to add detail according to what I'm understanding your guidelines to be. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
NexGen Nixie I added material on NexGen. Is this more of how you want to see it done? Finplanwiki (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
References Nixie just looking around for more outside editorial coverage on Kitces now that I understand the issue. So articles like these - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/your-money/401ks-and-similar-plans/22money.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/your-money/individual-retirement-account-iras/29money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 - are what I should be using, right? It's ok to reference this - http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/more-flexibility-added-for-roth-401k-conversions/ - but not this: http://kitces.com/blog/archives/463-Financial-Planning-Implications-of-HR8-the-Taxpayer-Relief-Act-of-2012.html right? Just want to really be certain I'm getting it here before I put more time into this!! Finplanwiki (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)