Deletion of Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)

Comment: I have no opinion on the retention of this article. I do have an opinion on the quality of some of the arguments put forward. It is important to make comments based upon Wikipedia policy, not on  or on . When this is closed it will be closed based upon the '''policy based arguments''' put forward by all who express an opinion. Personal strongly held opinions either way are not relevant, however valid, important, they are in the real world. Here we are only concerned with |notability and |verification/verifiability. Either Berns passes or she fails. Those new to Wikipedia who have, perhaps, come here from the twitter announcement, should try, please, to understand how discussions are held here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: this individual has only received coverage for the one event of dying, meaning that they fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: From what I've seen in the article and from reading some of the sources, there certainly seems to be enough there to indicate notability. ''However'', there is a lot of content relating to J.K. Rowling that needs to be condensed; |notability is not inherited and there's a bit here that could be confused for inherited notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: all of the sources I've seen are either only about one event (the JKR connection) or are opinion or otherwise non-reliable sources. Does not pass GNG. A lot of the keep votes are not based on wiki guidelines; for example sailinginabathtub's sources only show she fails , pyxis solitary's list of sources is dominated by sources that are not RS, fail 1E, and/or are only brief mentions, and that a subject is discussed in Germany is irrelevent to GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: The level of notability here is not high but the nomination vastly overplays its hand by suggesting that it is entirely absent. The strongest case for deletion I can think of would be  and this is fairly close. Interest in her has simmered down a lot but not quite disappeared entirely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The individual is notable and meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability ().  The following noteworthy individuals have made public statements about Magdalen Berns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: The IP editor seems to be right, as far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned. This seems to be a clear failure of the . The sources linked above have one mention of the name, in relation to an event about JK Rowling, and present no significant information about the subject. The only real source that covers them in detail is Morning Star, which per RSP seems to be unacceptable for notability purposes. The article is written extensively, but part of this is self sourcing, non-RS sources (like The New York Post), and many of the citations don't even talk about the subject (eg https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-silencing-of-the-lesbians this, from The Spectator, has no mention of them apparently, so I have no clue what fact it's verifying). It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine, thus, that some of the prose contains OR. That having been said, there can be the argument that a lot of scattered mentions in disparate events surpass the requirements of . Whereas clearly some people are interested in the information this article provides (see talk page and https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Magdalen_Berns pageviews), and considering that purpose of Wikipedia is to create a "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia",  may well apply in this case to keep the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:1E||WP:IAR)

Comment: Meets  which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Once the emotions stirred up by this AfD fade, the unreliable sources can be trimmed from the article, and a neutral summary of her life and death will be the result. I am convinced that she is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Fails . When looking for reliable sources in the media I would suggest one look at  to evaluate. Using opinion pieces to establish notability is unequivocally against Wikipedia's Notability Policy. What is reliable can not be defined by any one editor here. It must be agreed upon by a consensus of editors. I respect someone presuming that the subject is notable and creating an article for the subject. This AfD is not to presume something already presumed, therefore any criteria which says you may use it to presume notability is null. No result here can undo the significance of the subjects life. The only thing that matters to Wikipedia is whether the subject received significant coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable independent secondary sources that confirm notability rather than presume it. I don't see it in what has been included. Sometimes there can be too many references so if anyone can point out specific sources that are on  and included in the article then I will reassess my bolded course of action. The tragedy here is that a life was lost almost two years ago to something as terrible as cancer. Lets keep everything else |civil, please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RSP||WP:RSP||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Sourced article that asserts notability, passes  and , no  violation. And as noted by others, this AfD has seen brigading, and the article subject is a controversial person. As such, I suggest this AfD fits criterion 2 of  for a '''Speedy Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:BLP||WP:CSK)