Talk:Michael Kitces

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Michael Kitces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Michael Kitces at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2013. The result of the discussion was AfD withdrawn.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

Wow, thanks so much to whoever created a biography for me! I'm honored! Mkitces (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC) -Michael Kitces[reply]

Untitled

I have attempted to make changes to this article to conform to requests from the recent AfD discussion. If further changes are suggested from reviewers, please feel free to note here or contact me. Thanks. Finplanwiki (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The problem is the reliable sources. The only thing that qualifies is the WSJ article and that is just a mention in an article. This entry does not meet the guideline minimum.--WondoMathias (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: this is a puff piece made by either Kitces or someone connected to him. It needs to be deleted ASAP. @Theroadislong: Can you advise? I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. How do we get this deleted because I can't find much of anything establishing this subject's notability per WP:DEL-REASON. If you could tag the article for a discussion or something that would be great. I don't know the process after its already been proposed for deletion (twice at that). BennyHartmen (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Kitces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228040048/http://www.financial-planning.com/news/movers-shakers-2006-527340-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1 to http://www.financial-planning.com/news/movers-shakers-2006-527340-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 checking in

This article would benefit from splitting it into different sections, right? To make it easier to read. I will give it a shot -- feel free to revert my edits if they are not helpful. Nickgray (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article still reads self-promotional. It would benefit from an edit, or some sort of tag warning readers that it feels... I forget the words (w/apologies, still new around here)... it feels biased. Some of the marketing-copy can be trimmed on review. Nickgray (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]