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. TigerShark 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Baggs[edit]

Amanda Baggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article has already been created and deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Baggs and the deletion log. The subject has been interviewed by CNN and has videos on YouTube. I would say that one CNN interview and having videos on YouTube is insufficient grounds for notability. I think Amanda Baggs has stated on her blog in March or April 2006 that she did not want a Wikipedia article. In addition, on a recent blog entry [1] Amanda Baggs has expressed dislike towards the recent media attention. Delete as unnotable. Q0 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: It was February 27, 2006 (not March or April) when she made the statement that she did not want a Wikipedia article. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retraction from nominator: I am the one who nominated this article for deletion. At this point, I'd be willing to retract my nomination, if Wikipedia allows nominators to retract AfD's. If I cannot retract my nomination, I would like to retract my delete vote and change my vote to No vote. Q0 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - having an interview on CNN may count as non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:BIO; however, more than one external source is ideally needed. Delete unless sources are added. (Incidentally, whether or not the subject wants a Wikipedia article has no bearing on their inclusion. If George W. Bush announced that he didn't want a Wikipedia article, that wouldn't be grounds to delete him. The same notability standards apply to everyone.) Walton monarchist89 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that in cases of borderline notability, whether or not a person wants an article should be taken into consideration. Concerns about privacy and information that might be damaging or otherwise sensitive are awkward issues for those who are not used to being written about. Q0 10:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Not used to being written about"? She consented to being interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta, and worked hard to get it done. How can you be sure where she stands on the privacy issue today? Jim Butler^(talk) 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: When I talked about people not used to being written about, I did was not referring to Amanda specifically, but I meant that I expect that it is common for non-public people to not be used to being written about and would be uncomfortable to have a Wikipedia article, and that therefore, it should be reasonable to take a person's preference to not have an article into consideration in cases of borderline notability. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I acknowledge and respect the privacy issue, but I don't think you've demonstrated that this case is "borderline". Three independent CNN pieces do not = borderline. Squarely within WP:BIO and WP:N. That is not the issue here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In April 2006, the CNN stuff didn't exist, nor (AFAIK) did any other good secondary source, so notability was at that time a valid concern. The article could have been created and deleted a thousand times between then and now, but the new mass media cites change everything. Now that the CNN article exists, the article passes WP's primary notability criterion in exactly the same way other activists like Jim Sinclair and Sue Rubin do. WP:N says A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. ... (snip)... For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources. At CNN we have A. Chris Gajilan[2], Sanjay Gupta [3] and Anderson Cooper[4] reporting separately. Seems a pretty clear-cut keep to me, per WP:N. If the concern is about other issues, like privacy, then let's just discuss those. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jim Butler, and expand. As long as the article adheres to WP:BLP standards and is correct there's no reason not to have it now that the notability criteria has been met. 23skidoo 13:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Artaxiad 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jim Butler. Notability has been established. I hope to see an expansion in the article with more sources. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just being interviewed about your medical condition is not notability. There seems to be nothing beyond this interview, either; Google News Archive has nothing. Given there is no compelling reason to retain this article, WP:BLP's presumption in favor of privacy seems to be appropriate here. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Just being interviewed about your (disability)" -- please let's be clear about the facts here. She was interviewed on CNN, about a YouTube video she posted to raise awareness of her disability, and (per CNN and her linked self-published material) is a longtime activist and self-advocate in disability rights. That is pretty clear evidence of consent and cooperation toward getting her message into the public eye, and unambiguously meets WP:N. How is a WP article that strictly follows such sources an invasion of privacy?

With regard to non-public figures, WP:BLP says:

In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source....(snip)... in borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I was judiciously attentive to WP:N and WP:BLP when I created the article. If Amanda Baggs has decided (recently, not in April 2006, before she did the YouTube and CNN thing) that she wants the article removed, then I'll go along with that, even though I believe the article is compliant. Perhaps what would be more appropriate than deleting would be concerned editors watching the article and helping keep it up to par. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: [5] is the blog entry from February 27, 2006 where Amanda Baggs expresses the desire to not have a Wikipedia article (in comment #5). She seems to suggest that a biographical article would require original research. Q0 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes, but how do you know that she didn't change her mind between then and now, especially since she so recently consented to go through all the interviews and Q&A at CNN? Not meaning to be contentious, Q0, just trying to ask the right questions. I don't see how the article does harm, being based not in original research but rather in reliable sources. WP bio articles are explicitly not intended as a vehicle for editors to do original research, and such attempts are quickly quashed by other alert editors. Jim Butler^(talk) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know if Amanda has changed her views since February, 27 2006 about not wanting a Wikipedia article. Even though the current article is not based on original research, I'm not sure it could go beyond being a stub since there is only one CNN interview to base it on. I'll try asking Amanda on her blog if she has changed her mind about not wanting an article, though since she said she won't be writing much in the near future due to disliking the media attention, I don't know if she will reply. Given that she considers the media attention as a necessary evil to getting the information out and wished she was not the messenger, I would not consider the fact that she consented to a CNN interview to be evidence that she has changed her mind about the wikipedia article. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Necessary evil" sums up the issue well; Amanda recognizes that it's inherently hard for self-advocates to convey their ideas without some degree of attention to the messenger. I agree that the message is more important than the messenger, and I believe we can get it across in WP with or without an article on Amanda herself, although having the article would be more helpful than not for this reason: the ability to cite self-published sources by the article's subject. That would allow greater dissemination of Amanda's ideas, which is kind of the whole point of her activism, right? Either way, the CNN articles (again, there are three of them[6][7][8], Q0, not one) have lots of great quotes from experts that can and should be included in WP. (Along those lines, the article could indeed grow beyond stub status, via CNN and her own non-pseudonymous, verifiably self-published work.) Amanda, if you're reading this, I hope you understand my rationale, and am sorry if you didn't want this article to appear. If it stays, I and other editors will keep it well within appropriate boundaries; WP:BLP is very clear about those. I only wanted to help raise awareness, not stress levels. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did not intend to raise stress levels and did not realize that this AFD would generate this much debate. I apologize if anyone has been upset by this. I should say that I do not speak for Amanda and can only go by what I have read from her blog. If Amanda says that she has changed her mind about her previous preference to not have a Wikipedia article, then I will retract my delete vote, and if possible, I will retract the AFD (I'm not sure if nominators can retract an AFD). Also, I think Jim Butler has a point that Amanda's blog entries and other writings can be used as references so I guess the article can grow beyond a stub. Q0 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hi, I'm the subject of this article. My main concerns in the past were that the article in Wikipedia contained some information about me that was unintentionally inaccurate (as I recall, it was someone saying that I'd been institutionalized my entire childhood, which is not true, I was institutionalized on and off throughout my adolescence), but since I was the only source of information otherwise or of most biographical information about me, it would constitute original research to correct it or for that matter to write a biographical article on me at all. I still don't think there's much out there (given that I've only been in CNN, for a very short amount of time, and doubt I'm really a public figure), but I'm indifferent at this point as long as Jim or someone keeps on top of it for inaccuracies, since I know we're not allowed to edit articles about ourselves. Silentmiaow 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hello, and thank you very much for taking the time to comment here. Yes, you have my firm commitment that I'll keep close tabs on this article (it it's retained) for inaccurate or inappropriate material(and I'm sure I won't be the only one). I also wanted to say that your hands are not tied with respect to editing; see these two sections from WP:BLP: dealing with edits by the subject of the article; using the subject as a source. Not only can you correct inaccuracies if you choose, it's no longer original research to do so since self-published material by the article's subject is considered an acceptable primary source (as I mentioned just above, and within the parameters of WP:BLP: not just any random quote can or should be used). So you may make such changes, or feel free to contact me or another editor. All the best to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject's desire to be in or out of WP is irrelevant, per precedents. I see three respected journalists through one credible medium CNN; to me that provides the multiple; however, the multiple criterion is being disputed at WP:NOTE and consideration of one strong source is being acknowledged by many without clear consensus. Clearly this is above trivial notice; whether it is important or not is not required by WP. --Kevin Murray 20:23, 23 February 2007 (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.