Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Baggs


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs
This was put up for prod by L33tminion, but I thought that it deserved more discussion/attention than it was likely to receive through that process, so I'm listing it here instead. I think that Ms. Baggs is sufficiently notable to merit a biography (though it's not entirely clear-cut), and I'm not sure exactly how heavily to weight her stated preference not to have an article (cited on the article's talk page). For tallying purposes, treat this as a No Vote, with the hope that some constructive discussion can work things out. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a vote + Not voting = All Good? -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, sounds beaut! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Possible delete unless more significance is established. Many many people write for magazines, few of them should have articles.  This magazine doesn't even have an article, so maybe it's not a major one.  At any rate, it makes no sense to go creating articles on individual contributors before having one on thge magazine itself. However, if she's sufficiently verifiable as an activist, this could be a reason to keep.  Google does turn her up here and there on the internet, but that's not really enough.  Friday (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the magazine because it was the only print media citation turned up by a casual search. She's supposedly much more notable for her online work (on blogs and autism sites), but I didn't add that because it's not something I'm really familiar with and I didn't want to accidentally add more errors to the article when she's already unhappy about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If her "activism" just consists of internet posts and she's not discussed in any proper sources, then I'd say it's a definite delete.  Friday (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, her columns on autistics.org have been cited as required reading in at least one college course (at the University of Wisconsin), and she does get a hit as a reference on Google Scholar(.pdf), and another in this text on Google books. -Colin Kimbrell 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: One possible solution is to create an article like Autism rights movement activists for respective activists who might not be noteworthy enough to have articles in Wikipedia, but still play an important role in the autism rights movement. Q0 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read the blog entry by Amanda Baggs. Since she doesn't talk about her life in public, there will be no way to find references for an article, which means that the only way to have something more developed than a stub is to do original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Delete either as original research or something that has no potential to be more than a stub. Q0 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: relisting 08/03/06, which in your time is still 08/03/06. Bonza! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Autism rights movement. Ned Wilbury 05:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of notability. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 06:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Ter e nce Ong 09:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No Lexis/Nexis hits, not notable enough for own bio. Thatcher131 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Autism rights movement or a new article on autism rights activists if there are enough of them to warrant it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, Google search shows subject of article is treated as notable within relevant community of interest. Monicasdude 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Monicasdude. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  12:37, 14 March 2006 (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.