Deletion of Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is no validity to well meaning thinking on . The outcome, while ''likely'' is not ''indisputable''.  This renders a speedy/snow close to be unwise. The article on Berns deserves a full discussion. If not then Wikijustice will not be seen to be done
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The article seems a classic case of , is much longer than reliable sources allow, and generally comes close to the edge of GNG. Cites #6 and #7 might have persuaded me but both are written by single contributors to their respective publications (one was by Posie Parker who actually seems more notable than Berns from my source scan, but who doesn't have a page as far as I can see). If kept and properly improved, it seems to me like the article itself would be very lean given the limited set of  - with nearly all the RS dealing with an event better mentioned on JK Rowling's page. That makes me think it fails  too. It feels very well described by  IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE||WP:RS||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:PSEUDO)