Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Frankowska

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frankowska[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Being in a Top 30 specialized Forbes list does not cut it. Only two sources are about her (instead of mentioning her in passing), both seem to be primarily interviews, so not best for establishing notability, and neither (Belle Magazine, Real Business) seem to be particularly significant or reliable. At best, WP:TOOSOON to be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Hey Piotr, thanks for raising your concerns! Firstly, let me say that I made this article, and think that Anna is notable, as she is a young immigrant woman being covered by media in the UK business arena, that has been traditionally dominated by men. Which is a really notable feat, especially in the present Brexit climate! I have now added three more sources to this article, where Anna was featured. Including the British newspaper Metro, which with a circulation of 1,476,956 is the third most circulated paper in the United Kingdom, this is where I first read about Anna in the print version, when she had a double page spread. I have also added a reference to Bdaily a UK based local business news source, and I would not pass judgement that newer companies such as Real Business or Belle Magazine are not reliable straight away, especially in context to the current revelations about lack of authenticity in the traditional news media. I have also added an international news source from Poland WP Kobieta (Woman). WP is the sixth largest Polish web portal, and had an Alexa rank of 453 in December 2016. Also the sources that "mention her in passing" are in fact about her app, which is what she founded and is notable for, so in the given context they are appropriate in reference to her notability too. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also added references from British news sources, Tech City News, Growth Bussiness, one of the UK's largest banks NatWest's ContentLive, Business Quarter (BQ) a publication, that is title sponsor of the Scottish Export Awards (along with other sponsors HSBC and the government agency Scottish Enterprise). JuneKennedy (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she is fairly notable and there are enough sources covering her achievements and success in the field of technology. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the editor does have a point, that being simply listed on Forbes alone may not be enough for notability, I think there maybe some confusion here about the Forbes sources. Forbes is referenced twice: one time as a list, but there is a second reference to another Forbes page, which is an article on her. Also her being on that Forbes list, is covered in other sources too. Taking all sources into consideration here, I would say she is notable. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^{( $Talk$ )} 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She maybe young, but she is already notable in business and technology. Several references from reliable sources are now present. Beautiful future (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable businesswoman. More than adequate and reliable references for an article of this length. RajasthanSab (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2017 (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.