Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jordan, Financial Adviser


 * 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   delete. ( X! ·  talk )  · @980  · 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

William Jordan, Financial Adviser

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am nominating this article for deletion ostensibly on grounds on notability (though the tone and content could use some work).

Put simply, being quoted by newspapers is insufficient to achieve notability. We need reliable sources that talk about William Jordan, not mention him is passing. It worries me that for all the "emminence" that is being claimed in the article, not a single meaty source has yet been provided. If several could be found, then obviously we ought to keep the article. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. William Jordan is a notable, contemporary in his field of financial planning. 23 national media programs and periodicals have used him as an expert and/or reference for programs and articles. The periodicals listed are not JUST newspapers, though the Wall Street Journal is one of the most well respected current financial publications of this day. Nor is FORBES a newspaper, nor Kiplinger's Retirement Report, nor TIME, nor BusinessWeek. These are national current media with more than a million readers and viewers each. In the industry of financial planning, these are most of the most prominent publications. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for The Wall Street Journal not once, but three times--by Jane Kim in April of 2008 and Shelly Banjo in June and January 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source by FORBES twice by Ashlea Ebling in June and January of 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for Kiplinger's publications four times: March of 2008 by Jeffery R. Kosnett and David Landis, April 2008 by Kathryn Walson and three times by Mary Beth Franklin, September and April 2008, and in January 2010.

CNBC's Wall Street Journal Report, Closing Bell and Power Lunch are programs where William Jordan was asked to talk as an authority in the field of personal finance. (Visit williamjordanassociates.com for clips and pdf's of articles.) Why do they like him? Because he is an independent expert in his field. He is not tied to AIG or Charles Schwab or Fidelity. Jordan is not just referenced in passing, he is the reference for these articles, programs and publications. Heath224 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are plenty of reliable sources quoting him, their only mentions of him appear to be that he's the president of a financial services company and a short quote. I have been unable to find any independent mention of him that "address[es] the subject directly in detail", so I feel that he fails to pass WP:GNG. 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete being quoted by RS is not enough to make you notable. Sole Soul (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: From Forbes January 2008, The Great 401K Escape by Ashlea Ebling, here is pointed direct advice in what the subject of the article should do with funds per William Jordan's advice: Jordan plans to increase Wright's fixed-income allocation and construct a ladder of individual bonds with different maturity dates. In his 401(k), which doesn't let him buy individual securities, Wright's only choice would be a bond fund, whose maturity structure cannot be customized.

And again direct advice from William Jordan on the subject of creating a retirement paycheck from Kiplinger June 25, 2008 article, Creating a Retirement Paycheck, by Kathryn Walson: ''Try not to tap principal in the early years of retirement. One way to generate income without tapping principal is to shift more of the stock portfolio into dividend payers. "Dividend-paying stocks allow retirees to take income no matter whether stocks go up or down," says William Jordan, president of the Sentinel Group, in Laguna Hills, Cal. If your mutual funds pay dividends on a quarterly basis, take the cash for your reserve fund rather than reinvesting.''

''Angie Rust, 67, who lives in Orange, Cal., retired last June from her job as a manager with an engineering firm. With Jordan's help, she set up a withdrawal strategy that will enable her to take a cruise every other year.'' Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Consistently being quoted by reliable secondary sources does, according to Wikipedia Notability in a Nutshell, make one notable: ''Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.''

At the same time, in two of the four Kiplinger's articles Jordan's clients are profiled through the entire article. They are the article. The writer takes these individuals as a case study -- per Jordan's strategies as to what to do: 1) when one is facing retirement (Kiplinger June 25, 2008, Kathryn Walson) 2) when one is self-employed around at tax time(Kiplinger, March 2008 by Jeffery Kosnett and David Landis). This is also the case in the January FORBES article, The Great 401(k) Escape. This article is about Jordan's client and the strategies he is employing to help his client invest money from his 401(k) into other investment opportunities, since the client is 59 years old or over. Jordan's advice "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (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.