Deletion of Michael Kitces (2nd nomination)

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 . If you insist on adding exponential fluff to borderline notability, I and I expect others, are driven to be policy sticklers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: 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 , ,  (practitioner editor is not the editor of an academic journal - it is someone who writes for free in exchange for self promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: Article's subject does not meet  or . Nearly all refs are to industry sources; ''WSJ'' article provides insufficient coverage, and there is no mention of subject in remaining ''NYT'' source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO)