I'm very careful with the word "slander." I use it to describe slander.  As in, what Qworty posted. Note that "slander" has two senses: one legal, and one informal. The legal sense is not for me to determine.  The informal sense?  Um, try to interpret this as anything but slander:  "I think it's going to come out that the only reason she got any books published at all was because her rich daddy was a huge big deal in the publishing world. And the reason she can't get any books published anymore is because her big rich daddy is retired now and no longer a heavyweight at all in that world." - Qworty. Not only do I interpret this as slander, but so do sober people on Wikipedia. And I quote Tvoz, with respect to your slander: "Well, I think there certainly are questionable, maybe defamatory, allegations there, and it would seem that BLP policy is not being fully followed. This is a long-time editor who is well aware of policy, so suggesting that he/she step back was appropriate as a first step to diffuse the drama, and I see that the next step I expected, of asking the editor to remove the material him/herself, has been done at User talk:Qworty#BLP concerns by a well-respected admin. But policy calls for the material to be removed either voluntarily by its author or by any editor, as we have an obligation to not defame our subjects, even in the heat of argument." For what it's worth, the word "defamatory" is in fact a legal designation. Moreover, if I were discussing the law - which I'm not - then I would be using the term "libel," which covers written/published defamation, as opposed to slander, which - in the strict legal sense - pertains to speech.