Deletion of Magdalen Berns

Comment: The only significant coverage from reliable sources in the article seem to be, as the nominator noted, from a Twitter feud, which is a clear  situation. Other than some coverage about their death, i'm not seeing any meaningful coverage before that point to warrant having a biography article on them. Unless significant coverage of their life can be presented separate from a Twitter feud and their death, then deletion seems the only proper course of action
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Mostly . There is some reliable source coverage on a single event that spans around 3 months and I'm not sure this will pass the |10 years test. I guess we won't know for sure until a few months from now, at least
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)

Comment: There is potential |canvassing coming from this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/deyejg/wikipedia_is_considering_deleting_article_on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: re:
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The Notability guideline is satisfied.  Berns is the central subject of https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/magdalen-berns-a-shero-among-women/ this article at the National Review (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources|reliable sources are not required to be neutral), which is not yet included in the article, but listed on the Talk page.  She is the central subject of https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/571815-celebrating-magdalen-berns-a-lesbian-feminist-warrior this article at AfterEllen.com.  That's significant coverage in two reliable secondary sources.  The multiple other reliable secondary sources, The Independent, Snopes, PinkNews, The Post and Courier, and https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/09/03/college-supports-trans-scholar-under-fire this link from Inside Higher Ed still on the Talk page, add up to further significant coverage, as  states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: As Pyxis states, as of today, Berns seems to have met the basic criteria, even if only in obituary form following her death. That is sufficient in itself, according to the guidelines. Beyond the basic criteria, she is clearly an influential figure and is widely cited within gender debates, although I don't see her quite meeting any additional criteria; but that isn't required having met the basic criteria. It's clear that for some on either side of the debate the retention or deletion of the article is seen as part of a propaganda battle. But  neither through publication nor deletion — we just need to look at notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY)

Comment: lack of reliable sources beyond ones that mention one twitter incident means  is an issue. Did a google news search and did not find RS to fix this problem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Sources are mostly passing mentions or fail  (note that the Morning Star, as mentioned above, is not a  because it doesn't have proper editorial controls); even the sources that come closest aren't really very independent of her.  Not enough in-depth coverage from sources we can reliably cite for statements of fact to write a proper article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)