Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Baiynd (2nd nomination)


 * 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) czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anne-Marie Baiynd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially promotional article, that I do not see how to fix. There are good references if someone could figure out how to rewrite it.

She is not notable as an authort--her book is in only 60 libraries.  DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - With all due respect to the nominator, this was just run through the AfD wringer this month. Notability is not temporary and all that... Correcting promotional tone is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - But since we are here for a second time and the nominator prefers another AfD to using the talk pages:
 * Baiynd is a notable retail trader. I decided not to write the article on the book and focus on her with the book included for the following reasons:
 * 1. Baiynd regularly gives presentations to the Market Technicians Association. She has given three of the 107 archived weekly presentations available online and that is more than any of the other experts that have presented since the beginning of 2013 (I did not bother going back beyond this current year for this AfD).
 * 2. The award winning StockTwits service includes Baiynd in their "Suggested list". Getting included in this list by itself is a kind of peer review and is not easy to attain.
 * 3. Three three different books on trading include interviews or quotes by Baiynd (one predates her first book).
 * 4. Multiple interviews and speaking engagements are available that predate her first book (Current refs 3, 4, 15, and 17; also one unused reference in Active Trader that was not used since I did not want to pay for a copy)
 * 5. Options Trading IQ included Baiynd in their 2012 "Top 25 Traders On Twitter" list.
 * 6. Baiynd has written two books and not just the one I had exposure to first.
 * 7. Magazines or news outlets that have mentioned Baiynd include: Active Trader, Futures (magazine), Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, The Wall Street Journal (article this month)
 * Finally, I am sorry that you do not like my writing style but that does not change the fact that she is clearly notable in her field and worthy of this article. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Trout the nominator. The last AfD discussion was closed less than four weeks ago, and the present nomination brings nothing new in the way of reasons to delete. The article has 30 references so I suggest that anyone who is concerned that the article does not accurately reflect the published sources uses them to re-write it to their satisfaction. --RexxS (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but after a full nomination process. The last AfD did not attract much attention and included some laughable comments (she would pass WP:ACADEMIC?? really??) so I don't want to use it as an excuse to shut this one down. I have the strong suspicion that this is part of a big walled garden of day trading operators and web sites that exist to promote each other. The article as nominated (before I just cleaned it out) was a mass of poor-quality web sources and trivial statements sourced to them, with the appearance that the statements were there purely to give an excuse to link to those web sites rather than as a solid source of information about the subject. In short, this all seems heavily promotional, and I can understand the nominator's frustration with the situation. That said, the walled garden appears to extend to enough major media sites (such as Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to make her notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.