Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Baiynd

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) TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Baiynd[edit]

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

While her book seems notable (most references discuss that), no significant coverage about her. Some interviews or mentions as a financial expert on sites, which is part of her job. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made the article about her and not her book alone because she was named in a recent book about traders as "World's Most Successful Traders" (Currently ref one). There are not many traders with a name that is easily recognized even though there are many traders in the world. She has also been one of the few recurring speakers for the Market Technicians Association (main organization in the field) does make her notable for that field. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see non-trivial coverage of Baiynd herself, rather than her book, in multiple sources, for example: Forbes, MoneyShow.com, Traders.com - check the article references for more. The Forbes coverage is not much, but it's there, and most of the other sources may be marginal for "reliability" - i.e. "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but there are quite a few sources on the web (Google for "Anne-Marie Baiynd" -wikipedia gives 107,000 ghits) including many seemingly serious online publications devoted to trading. This isn't conclusive evidence that WP:BIO is met, but there seems enough to me to suggest that she's notable for more than just the book (being notable for her job is still notability, of course). --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in her field; if she was an academic she'd pass the WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria (which makes me think we should expand WP:ACADEMIC to any professional in their field, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). ~Amatulić (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient media exposure. Some will doubt the very basis of technical trade, but that's another issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 4 May 2013 (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.