Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Baggs (2nd nomination)
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 #The_primary_notability_criterion|primary notability criterion in exactly the same way other activists like Jim Sinclair and Sue Rubin do.   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 Gajilanhttp://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/21/autism.amanda/index.html, Sanjay Gupta http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/02/behind-veil-of-autism.html and Anderson Cooperhttp://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/ reporting separately.  Seems a pretty clear-cut keep to me, per . If the concern is about other issues, like privacy, then let's just discuss those.  thx
— User:Jim, 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)