Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Merriman

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. ✗plicit 03:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Merriman

[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)

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Source 1 is a link to the subjects main website. Source 2 is unavailable. Source 3 is a link to the Corporations Division of Washington. Source 4 is a blog article written by the subject from the subject's own website. Source 5 is a link to the subject's biography. Source 6 is a small description in a slideshow of about a podcast he was involved in on CNN Money. It's not an article by any means. Source 7 is unavailable. Source 8 is unavailable. Source 9 is unavailable. Source 10, Merriman is quoted a couple times in a book on Google Scholar. The book itself is not notable. Source 11 is unavailable. Source 12 is a link to his biography on a company website he was involved with. In addition to the majority of this article being unsourced, there are a number of personal bios I found online with grandiose claims, i.e. recognized by Forbes, nationally recognized, widely regarded, etc. and I did not find any independent, notable sources to constitute SIGCOV. Most of it is just him stating that, or his bio pasted somewhere. However, he has written several online blogs and articles and so I did consider him for WP:NACADEMIC. Unfortunately, none of it's cited in Google Scholar, and mostly appears to be his opinion and not original research as well. Feels like WP:NOT. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP is full of dross and nobody has cited his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This looks like spam for a financial advising business rather than like a Wikipedia article. If the books had published reviews then there would be a case for
WP:AUTHOR but I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
100% agree with that. It does seem like the article is being used to garner trust for financial services. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like
WP:GNG. Appropriate sourcing non-existent, per nom. NiklausGerard (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The coverage just isn't there. His co-authored book Market Timing with No-Load Mutual Funds (1987) was reviewed in
Seattle Times review[3] of the same or a similar tape contextualizes him a bit and is more positive. There's a short bio in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies[4]. This was important because it confirmed that his radio show was regional on a few stations and not national. Merriman's 1991 book, Investing for a Lifetime was reviewed in Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine[5]. Money magazine called Merriman's podcast "The Best Money Podcast" in 2008 and said "Vanguard founder Jack Bogle is a fan."[6]. There are a bunch of citations of him as an expert, but none are super substantial, often his views on market timing are a foil for the author's differing view. There's a couple of alumni or local profiles. All in all, it's just not enough coverage, I think. I hesitate a bit because a lot of 80's and 90's stuff probably isn't available on the internet, but it seems like he's never quote broken through to lasting significance.Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2022 (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.