Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)
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
— User:ProcrastinatingReader, 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:1E||WP:IAR (Wikipedia:Notability)