Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert D. Arnott


 * 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 No consensus/default keep. Certainly a close case, but Rallc's point that "praticing" analysts might be hard to locate in "academic" search engines is not unreasonable. Cleanup the fluff editorially, let's see if more evidence emerges, and this can always be relisted in a month or two. Xoloz 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert D. Arnott
Speedy deleted as A7 but author requested undeletion at WP:DRV, where folks thought undelete and AfD would be the right course, so here it is. This looks very much like a promotional piece, the author's few contributions are to this and related articles, including adding links to this. Uncharitably, I thought of User:MyWikiBiz when I saw that, but maybe not. I get about 370 unique Googles which is heading into unreliability truncation territory, most of the links appear to be of a promotional or press release nature, but I did not look that closely. Guy 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The concern I have over articles like this is one of sources. While Mr Arnott may or may not scrape by on notability, where's the multiple independent, reliable, verifiable sources? --kingboyk 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above.--Alabamaboy 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep although there is a concern about sources, it does seems like he breaks the threshold of notability in WP:BIO. There are a number of Ghits that mention him and 370 unique hits while low is not off-the-radar either. In fact I get 446 unique hits for "Robert D. Arnott" + investing. To me a link like this one is at least weak evidence that he is a respected analyst. I think the article could be kept minus the self-serving fluff content. Pascal.Tesson 14:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - "Robert D Arnott" get's 15 thousand google hits. That is certainly enough, for a productive editor to add and cite more details.  Article strength should not be based on those who are not willing to do research. Wjhonson 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 *  Neutral Delete I'm not convinced that person is sufficiently notable, but am still undecided. He may pass WP:PROF . However, he is certainly not "a personality associated with Wall Street". I think one needs to have some media coverage associated with one's personality for that. If article is kept, it needs trimming and humbling. Bwithh 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to delete based on Trialsanderrors' research and assessment Bwithh 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm concerned by the number of articles appearing about, in my option, quite non-notable financial people. A lot of these are coming from single-purpose accounts and I'm quite sure wiki now has paid editors.  I'm not suggesting that about this particular article or its editor - it's a general statement.  Anyway, in this case, I think editing the article would suffice - he is for example the ed of the Financial Analysts Journal    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete About sources, there 42 news sources mentioning RDA, so this is not quite unsourceable territory, but according to the "best" article on Newsbank, Arnott received a modicum of attention for a paper published in Financial Analysts Journal (not a peer-reviewed journal to my knowledge -- no record on ISI). That's about the coverage untenured assistant professors get, so I see him in a league with bishops, surgeons, and mid-ranking military officers. Above average, but not in notability territory. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The Financial Analyst Journal is the flagship publication for the CFA Institute (Certified Financial Analyst), which is the most important and prestigeous professional association for the finance industry. The FAJ is a double blind peer-review journal (the correct citation index would be SSCI, not ISI), where the rejection rate is 90%.  Rob Arnott has served as the editor-in-chief for the FAJ since 2002.  He has won two best paper awards (Graham and Dodd Award) and 4 honorable mentions from the FAJ prior to taking over the editorship of the journal.  Rob was also a visiting professor in finance at UCLA Anderson School of Management from 2001-2002 and has published in the Harvard Business Review, the FAJ, Journal of Portfolio Management, Journal of Investing, etc; searching for publications with Rob Arnott produces numerous matches.  He has written two books on asset allocations (one of which was translated into Japanese): (1) Active Asset Allocation and (2) Asset Allocation.  He won the best new index research for 2005 from Index Universe for his fundamental indexation research published in the FAJ.  He sat on the board for Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade.  With regards to "some media coverage associated with one's personality", he is a routine guest on CNBC, Wall Street Week, and Bloomberg TV.  For another "independent, reliable, verifiable source", Investor Home's "Who's Who in investing" ranks Rob Arnott with the likes of Michael Bloomberg, John C. Bogle, Bill Gross, Charles R. Schwab, Dr. Edward Yardeni, etc. He was also recently named as one of the 30 most influential finance visionaries by SmartMoney Magazine in its upcoming edition.  As to the "trimming and humbling", I am certainly open to constructive criticism and if someone could point me to an appropriate template, I would be happy to follow it.  However, I was never given the chance as the initial entry was 'speedily deleted' and no feedback provided. Rallc 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the Fin Anal J. It is in fact listed on ISI. Among specialized Finance journals it ranks 28th out of 40, with an impact factor of 0.542. The top-ranked journal, Journal of Finance, has a factor of 2.549. Top business and econ journal have an impact factor of 4 or 5. ~ trialsanderrors 08:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And while I'm checking ISI, Arnott's best-cited article gets 16 cites total, of which 4 are self-cites. The others get single digits, mostly zeros, ones and threes. ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Fin Anal J is more of a 'practitioner' journal, not so much an academic journal, so its impact factor is not too surprising. Well know publications such as The Wall St Journal and Barron's would receive a citation index of 0 because no academics cite them.
 * I would like to review some of the guidelines wikipedia has setup to address the issue of notability:
 * "Published authors, editors, and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" ... FACT: Rob Arnott is the author of 2 books and is editor of the FAJ; he has won Graham and Dodd Awards, as well as Bernstein-Fabozzi/Jacobs-Levy Awards.
 * "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" ... FACT: Rob Arnott receives numerous hits on Google.
 * "The professor test - If the individual is more well know and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." ... FACT: Rob Arnott has published 70+ articles.
 * "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." ... FACT: Rob Arnott has appeared on CNBC, Wall St Week, and Bloomberg TV multiple times.
 * Could the specific criteria that Wikipedia has set forth for notability be explicitly addressed for Robert D. Arnott? - Rallc 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to point out that "peer-reviewed" is not the standard for notability at any rate in financial circles. A person could be a financial crackpot and still be notable.  The fact that he gets 15 thousand google hits, means 15 thousand independent sites have found him notable enough to make the effort to say *something* about him. Wjhonson 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.