Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Slott

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 keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Slott[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of a financial planning expert with major COI concerns. Although the subject is an author and prolific commentator I am not finding in depth coverage in RIS to support this. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a challenging one. PROQUEST/newspapers.com is getting thousands of hits; simply because he is widely quoted in major newspapers (literally hundreds of articles in major American newspapers). However, I am not actually finding much coverage of him directly even though he is frequently quoted for interviews in IRA and tax related news coverage. He's clearly an established expert given the large body of articles for which he has been quoted as an expert (The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, etc.). The only thing I can find is interviews like [1]. Then we have AARP, promoting him as the nation's leading expert in retirement financial planning and promoting his writing [2]. Here is a decent review of his most recent book [3]. Given that so many major outlets are quoting him and going to him for an expert opinion and he appears to have a large impact on retirement planning in America, I am going to say this is a keep per criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per 4meter4's analysis. Seems to have made a notable contribution to his field, as confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Significant coverage is the gold standard, but WP:ANYBIO is still relevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4, though I personally feel the interview for being WP:PRIMARY and the Forbes Article being written by a contributor, per WP:FORBESCON these aren't of much value while considering notability. But the other references are sufficient to establish his notability. The Public training section should be shortened. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.