Draft talk:R.J. Shook

Comments
I have removed the offending Forbes.com references and use them only as a reference for articles that have been already published by Forbes written by Forbes Magazine writers. Please note that the articles I list in this draft are written by a Forbes staff writer. They are NOT sponsored content. I would like to note that these articles are published in both Forbes and then later on Forbes.com. The subject matter is identical. Nevertheless, I am citing the magazine reference in most cases. I have removed the URL from Forbes.com in hope that this may satisfy Wiki admins. If the Forbes.com reference is included it is done merely to reference what is already been published by Forbes.

Please note that all the articles I cite here are edited and factchecked by staff at Forbes magazine. There is no advertising or renumeration received by Forbes or SHOOK Research in exchange for rankings.

SHOOK Research provides the underlying research for the rankings Forbes publishes. Staff Writer Sergei Klebnikov has written the articles, but he appropriately cites SHOOK Research which did the research and produced the lists. Next, I have removed the offending references to Dropbox and cleaned up those references. I have removed the interview with R.J. Shook and instead rely on published, third party sources.

I would like to note that Wikipedia's rules allow subject-matter experts (SME) to be quoted about their area of expertise. R.J. Shook is the first and only developer of rankings measuring the competence of financial advisors.

R.J. Shook developed the original, inaugural list for Barron's, sold his business to News Corp. and then started a new business. He is now working with Forbes, publishing an expanded, more in-depth group of lists. Arguably, Shook is a SME on this subject having developed metrics to create the only known rankings of advisors. Shook developed his expertise over more than 20 years and has written 10 books on the subject. These factors should more than qualify him for being an SME on wealth management advisors.

So why would this Wiki be of interest to a wider audience? Please note that thousands of individuals seeking wealth management services rely on these rankings when choosing a professional to develop a financial plan, get advice and to manage their wealth. The wealth management industry is no small potato. Worldwide it is a $128.9 trillion industry. Wealth management drives the global economy. Forbes is interested in these rankings because of the interest in the subject and the traffic it brings its media properties. The magazine has 657,000 subscribers, but its web platforms attract 150 million viewers a month. Many of these readers come to view Forbes' lists. I should note that Forbes recognizes R.J. Shook as a notable expert. So should Wikipedia. Respectfully submitted, JohnnyDeadline — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, February 5, 2024 (UTC) }}


 * Anything written, said or in partnership with Shook/his firm is a primary source and not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. What is needed is in-depth coverage about him, with no or very little input by him or those affiliated with him which includes Forbes. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with your some of your comments, but I also disagree on some points. R.J. Shook is author of 10 books. This should warrant something related to notability. As I noted previously, he is an expert on this topic. The ranking business he created is based on his past experience on Wall Street and the books he wrote. As Wiki notes primary source may or may not be independent, but a primary source is generally the best kind of source you have (my opinion added here). They witness or know first hand what has happened. I have removed the material that offered an interpretation as requested. I am in touch with R.J. Shook and I am still on the hunt for additional materials regarding notability. So if I can find some sources related to notability, will this pass muster and be allowed?


 * see the notability guidelines for authors. Generally it is met with reviews by reputable publications/critics of an author's work (multiple reviews across multiple works...around three).  Once you are ready, you can click the resubmit button.  I will not review it again though as I think getting a different reviewer's opinion is best.  Also, primary sources can be used but only sparingly and very, very carefully.  Overuse of them tends to violate Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view policy, which is a core non-negotiable policy along with WP:Original research. S0091 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ...messed up name above so ping did not work. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)