Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. For the most part, those in favor of keeping the article based their case for notability on the few secondary sources that, in their view, are sufficiently reliable. Although RSP is clearly an issue debated at length in this AfD, there was an almost 3 to 1 definitive consensus to keep, even after discounting those keep !votes found to be wanting because they weren't based on a clear understanding of our policies, or other extraneous arguments that carry little or no weight at AfD. For these reasons, I conclude that another "No consensus" close or Delete close is untenable, and that a Relist would likely accomplish the same outcome.  JGHowes  talk 23:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen Berns

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Magdalen Berns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requested AfD by IP editor, whose opinion is represented in this nomination. I am expressing their opinion, not my own. If I express an opinion I will express it in the body of the discussion.

IP editor's rationale: "Requesting to create AFD for Magdalen Berns. This is a youtuber who got less than 30k subscribers and less than 200k views on most viewed video. There isn't a single independent, reliable source which makes more than a passing mention to her, so following the "golden rule" of wikipedia she isn't notable." FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I agree that Berns isn't one of the most famous YouTubers and wasn't thoroughly covered in the best sources, she was influential in the modern trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement. (not that I support that movement, I definitely don't). She is also important for better understanding JK Rowling's views on feminism, for example, as their views apparently align and JK praised her in her essays. This is a topic that attracts a lot of curiosity these days. For those reasons, I think it is useful to have a biography about her. - Daveout(talk) 18:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd suggest number of YouTube subscribers is far from the sole measure of notability. Berns' views clearly attracted considerable attention from both supporters and detractors, including some high profile public figures. She was also a fairly significant figure in Scottish amateur boxing (a niche area, but not an un-notable one, I would suggest), having won several championships and participated in some tournaments of note. It is simply untrue that "There isn't a single independent, reliable source which makes more than a passing mention to her". As with many articles, there is room for further improvement, but this article has been substantially improved since the last AFD nomination and I don't think there is a solid case for deletion. Finally, I would note that an individual having an article on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of that individual's views and it is certainly not a "tribute" or "fanpage", as some users appear to have interpreted. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. 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 WP:BIO1E and this is fairly close. Interest in her has simmered down a lot but not quite disappeared entirely. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say it's entirely absent because it is. There is not a single reliable, independent course giving her significant coverage. The best it gets is National Review, Morning Star and Spiked, none of which are reliable. If you look through the sources on the article, they're dreadful! All of the actually good sources (The Telegraph, The Guardian, Snopes, The Times) only make passing mention, not significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual is notable and meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:NN).
    The following noteworthy individuals have made public statements about Magdalen Berns:
– Author, journalist, feminist activist Julie Bindel
– Writer Graham Linehan
– Politician Ruth Maguire
– Writer Lily Maynard
– Politician, journalist Joan McAlpine
– Author, sex-trafficking survivor Rachel Moran
– Author Julia Diana Robertson
– Author J. K. Rowling
The following is a list of some of the sources used in the bio:
– Alternative Press (magazine)subst:
– Camden New Journal
– Cape Breton Post'
– Daily Record (Scotland)
– Edinburgh Evening News
– Gay Times
– GNOME Foundation
– The Guardian
– Holyrood (magazine)
– Morning Star (British newspaper)
– National Review
– Ophelia Benson (Butterflies and Wheels)
– The Post and Courier
– The Scotsman
– The Spectator
– Spiked (magazine)
– The Times
– The Wesleyan Argus
– Women's Engineering Society.
I'd also like to state that I suspect there is more to this request for deletion of the biography of a controversial individual than that the subject was just a "youtuber" without enough subscribers to merit Wikipedia notability. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very deceptive comment! It's been designed so that people go "ooh big list" without actually looking into the entries. When you look into them, you see that not a single source passes wikipedia's golden rule. They're all unreliable (Morning Star, Spiked) or have not ever given significant coverage to Berns (The Times, The Guardian). Trying to suggest I've got some other motive is also very nasty! I've made my reason clear - this is an article about a non-famous person, a youtuber who got hardly any views and hasn't received any coverage outside of her devoted following. There shouldn't be an article because the subject is not famous, at all. There are millions of more famous youtubers who also don't get articles, but this one only exists because of a very loyal fanbase - something which the posters above have proven! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP editor has a point. Specifically only listing the NAMES of sources used in the articles, and not HOW they're used makes this article seem way more healthy than it is. Frankly, most of the references to Berns in the better quality sources in that list are passing mentions. Outside of the BLP1E incident, there really isn't any direct or sustained coverage here. Not sure I feel strongly enough to vote yet, without really digging deep, but its not exactly comforting to see this sort of thing used in defense of keeping the article. Especially considering the shitshow below. Parabolist (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What's up with this sudden flood of !voters? I see newly registered SPA accounts with absolutely no other edits and a ton of IPs. Most of them have clearly never seen an AfD before. Is somebody actively canvassing this? If so, can we take some action against that? It obviously isn't going to affect the outcome, as there was a clear consensus to keep even before they started, but we don't want people getting the idea that brigading Wikipedia is an acceptable or effective tactic. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One IP making a sincere, but obviously misguided, request to delete is one thing. An organised brigade to disrupt the AfD process is quite another. Do you really want to be seen to defend that? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be canvassing. Sure. But I've been involved with Wikipedia for many years and if there's one thing I've learned is that there are may behind-the-scenes ways to rally troops without leaving telltale crumbs behind. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A frankly bizarre and hostile accusation given there have been no delete votes, aside from the nominator. What troops could you even say are being "rallied"? Parabolist (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pour water on the trigger combustion and chill out. Life is too short to be making mountains out of molehills. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not incredibly obvious? When a brigade of people, most of whom have no editing history at all, turn up on an AfD en masse that obviously speaks of outside coordination. It is not even slightly subtle. There are two types of Wikipedians who predominantly turn up on AfDs: Experienced Wikipedians who keep an eye on the AfD lists and general Wikipedians who have a history of editing the articles in question and hence have them on their watchlists. Of course, an AfD may attract a few other contributors but a deluge of them is very obviously suspicious. If an account is newly registered and its only edit is to bludgeon an AfD then that is almost certainly not legit. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer and an answer to your question. Users have posted about this on Twitter and encouraged brigading [1][2]. There's dozens of such Tweets. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is just a misguided AfD which people off-Wikipedia have misinterpreted as a political attack and reacted in a completely disproportionate and irresponsible way to. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does she meet notability requirements? There isn't a single source meeting wikipedia's golden rule! Everything on the page is either not independent, not a reliable source, or only a passing mention. It is also not true that it is just people off wikipedia who are being nasty. Pyxis above who is definitely a wikipedia user has posted a very misleading comment, implied I can't be trusted, and tried to claim I have some ulterior motive when all I did was argue my case! This is quite horrible really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. It is clear to me that you are stating your case in good faith as you see it. You can safely ignore the people saying otherwise. You are mistaken in calling the coverage merely passing mentions and not RS. It is more than that. Admittedly it is not a lot more than that, but it is enough that the article should be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 WP:ILIKEIT or on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: due to the off-wiki canvassing which was disrupting this debate with a large quantity of policy-devoid contributions, I have semi-protected the discussion, and moved most of these contributions to the AfD talk page. I encourage established Wikipedia contributors to continue to evaluate this article against our policies and guidelines, so that a consensus to keep or delete can be reached. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This option to delete the page of Magdalen Burns has indeed made her Twitter followers very worried. I totally subscribe with what McPhail (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC) stated, and I will add, that Magdalen is a figure which can be looked upon by gender studies, and visual cultures too. Influencers or Vbloggers can be subjects included in Wikipedia, as those are considered new media phenomena and are not excluded as in a snobbish, exclusivist category of unimportance. Thus, yes, the page should be kept. Thanks.Esther Planas (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. There are a lot of sources, and the statements made that the Morning Star and National Review (and probably even Spiked) are not reliable sources are not based in fact. Opinionated sources are acceptable for establishing notability. AfD probably shouldn't have been opened again tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 WP:GNG. 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 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 WP:1E. Whereas clearly some people are interested in the information this article provides (see talk page and pageviews), and considering that purpose of Wikipedia is to create a "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia", WP:IAR may well apply in this case to keep the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC 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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:BASIC actually says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Most everyone leaves the last part off about trivial mentions when suggesting a course of action. Trivial as in, limited information that offers no biographical significance or adds to the definition of who the subject is. This may be a simple name drop or information that is already provided elsewhere. The majority of the sources on cited for the article fall under this category if they even mention the subject at all. Can you provide historical evidence for your claim that "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." seeing as no changes were made after the previous AfD discussion to trim unreliable sources? What confidence do we have that it will occur this time? --ARoseWolf 17:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets all Wikipedia policies and is clearly notable but needs to remove a few non trustworthy sources Lunacats (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can some of the "keeps" please illuminate what sources they're seeing that brings this to meet GNG or N standards? I don't see anything but passing mentions in anything that can be taken as an RS and any other source isn't reliable per Wiki standards. Am I missing something here? Valeince (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Morning Star is an opinionated but reliable source. It has a much better record for factual accuracy than the likes of the Times or the Jewish Chronicle, which are both accepted as reliable sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Now, reading the article in the Morning Star, how does that show this person meets N or GNG guidelines? Because the article is an open letter that this youtuber signed. No other real info about this person can be gleaned from it. So that doesn't really help this here. Valeince (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has a much better record for factual accuracy than the likes of the Times Well hold on up here. You're saying the Morning Star is more reliable than The Times? The same Morning Star for which the community has said there is no consensus on whether [it] engages in factual reporting ... All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star ... conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. That Morning Star? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, even under those criteria, the Morning Star would be valid to establish notability. Secondly, the discussions on the Morning Star in RS noticeboard are deeply flawed. The fact the paper is historically connected to the CPB means that half the comments are "IT"S COMMUNIST!" and the other half involve people saying, "but it produces factual reporting", based on the fact no evidence of any false reporting exists. The Times actually demonstrably produces quite a lot of inaccurate and false reporting, so I would suggest it is far more reliable. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:RSP states There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. You may not agree with that assessment but you can't arbitrarily change it to fit a narrative either. Secondly, the reality is that obituaries are primary sources, paid or not. They are opinion pieces of the individuals who wrote them. They can be used for biographical information but can not be used to verify notability unless written in a reliable (See RSP) source in which all of their content is typically written in a blog style format. The degree to which a person is famous are well known does not mean they get an article on Wikipedia and it doesn't take away from their accomplishments in life either. Wikipedia cares about one thing, are there multiple sources (intellectually different) and are those sources reliable (per consensus), independent (of the subject), secondary (not by the subject or an opinion piece about the subject), verifiable (meaning the common person can access the information and rely upon the sources as being accurate) and finally does the subject receive significant coverage (meaning that the subject may not be the primary subject of the source but not a trivial mention either)? ALL of the statement above is required to confirm notability to keep an article, not presume it for article creation. --ARoseWolf 15:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biased sources are acceptable for establishing notability, and reliability is situational. In this situation, nobody disputes the veracity of the obituaries, so they are valid sources. Could you possibly link to the policy which states obituaries are not valid for establishing notability? They may well be opinion pieces, in the sense that they will contain judgments by an individual writer which must be attributed, though a news article will also frequently contain opinion that must be attributed, but they are published by an organisation and reflect that organisation's judgment on the significance of the individual concerned. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is situational in the sense of the genre of the article. Is it about a musician? Is it about a company? Is it about a soldier, professor, artist, athlete? In this case, it is about none of those, specifically. It is about a person in the general public that does not fall under any of our SNG topics. Therefore, our general notability guideline is the overarching principle. An obituary can be used when it is a published article that is included in the editorial process of a reliable source. Outside of that it must be considered the same as a blog or opinion that can not be used to confer notability based on the guideline but can be used to gain other biographical information not related to notability or in quoting something the subject said or related to the subject. In this case, it has been suggested the obituaries, not in reliable sources (WP:RSP), can be used to confer notability or used as examples of notability but that is against the notability guideline. The fact that you personally view sources that consensus has deemed reliable as containing opinion does not then mean that all opinion pieces can be used to confer notability. --ARoseWolf 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Valeince: Berns was co-founder of Scottish campaign organization For Women Scotland (https://forwomen.scot/about/)[1][2] (If you want further info on For Women Scotland: conduct a UK-based search.) Berns may have died young but she became influential in Scottish and British feminist and lesbian politics. Alive or posthumously, her speaks and political activism have received media coverage and she gained recognition by organizations and public figures. Whether someone on Wikipedia agrees or disagrees with Berns is irrelevant. And whether any sources used in the bio are opinions is also irrelevant per WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:RSOPINION.
"How to know what is “whorephobic”" (October 12, 2015), Ophelia Benson, Butterflies & Wheels
"‘Medical threat’ to transgender children on puberty-blocking drugs" (15 July 2016), Mark Blunden, Evening Standard
"16 July 2016 9:15 ~ Thinking Differently: Feminists questioning gender politics – London Women’s Networking Event – London" (24 May 2016), Womensgrid.org
"‘We need to be braver’ — women challenge ‘gender identity’ and the silencing of feminist discourse" (September 27, 2016), Meghan Murphy, Feminist Current
"Magdalen Berns, a ‘Shero’ Among Women" (September 4, 2019), Madeleine Kearns, National Review
"In memory of Magdalen Berns" (25 September 2019), Posie Parker, Spiked
"Magdalen Berns, vlogger who took a stand for women’s rights" (7 October 2019), Susan Chynoweth, Camden New Journal [published in print newspaper as: "Magdalen took a courageous stand for women's rights" (Thursday 3 October 2019)]
"Celebrating Magdalen Berns, a Lesbian Feminist Warrior" (September 13, 2019), AfterEllen
"The tweet heard ’round the world: Charleston professor sparks global Twitter debate" (August 29, 2019), Jenna Schiferl, The Post and Courier
"Maryam Namazie and Afsana Lachaux, Joint Winners of 2019 Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize" (12 November 2019), Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
"Women's rights campaigners 'living in fear of trans attack' after vile abuse directed at group" (6 September 2020), Jennifer Hyland, Daily Record
"J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues" (10 June 2020), J.K. Rowling, jkrowling.com

References

  1. ^ Pride Glasgow, For Women Scotland, 18 August 2019.
  2. ^ forwomen.scot @ForwomenScot, June 29, 2020, "In Sept 2019, Magdalen Berns, co-founder of FWS died at the age of 36.....
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BASIC. You cannot use primary sources, which includes opinion pieces, to establish notability. None of those sources are relevent to showing she passes GNG and 1E guidelines. Rab V (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 12 sources I used in the above "@ User:Valeince" reply, 6 are newspapers or magazines. Of the 6, only 2 appear in WP:RSPSOURCES — and there is no consensus for both. The other sources do not appear in the list. And since Berns is deceased, use of "self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source" — which per WP:RSOPINION are not acceptable for "material about a living person" — are not excludable. As a Wikipedia editor, I believe the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY have been met. The sources in the article are varied and predominantly secondary: (1) "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." and (2) "Secondary source material is based on primary and other secondary source material, and may include synthesis and novel conclusions." In any event, MOS does not prohibit the use of opinions, and obituaries from sources with editorial oversight, as secondary sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources go to any lengths talking about this person. Doesn't meet GNG or N. Valeince (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. When looking for reliable sources in the media I would suggest one look at WP:RSP 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 WP:RSP 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. --ARoseWolf 20:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this individual has only received coverage for the one event of dying, meaning that they fail WP:ONEEVENT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's clearly untrue, she also received coverage when JK Rowling followed her on Twitter. P-K3 (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    She did not receive significant coverage for that incident, only one-sentence long mentions in articles that talked about JK Rowling. That is not enough to contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, she received obituaries. Which, as per guidelines, is sufficient to demonstrate notability. This was discussed in the previous nomination. KJBracey (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the last AfD was closed as "No Consensus", that precedent has clearly not been set in this case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as described above. Owen (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable per the sources listed by SailingInABathTub and Pyxis Solitary. Also, if the topic is getting attention on social media then we can expect POV attention to follow, both pro and anti. I do wonder what prompted the nomination in the first place. Crossroads -talk- 03:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see the preceding discussion with the IP editor raising the nomination at Talk:Magdalen Berns. It started with "she's got fewer YouTube views than a video game YouTuber who doesn't have a page". The discussion led to a suggestion that it be taken to AFD. I don't believe anything material has changed since the previous nomination though. KJBracey (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tidy up. At the moment it's largely a hagiography. The only context in which I'm aware of her is of her promotion of the anti-Semitic notion that the existence of trans women is some sort of Jewish conspiracy. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that she is only just over the line for notability and there isn't really any mainstream consensus view of her to base an article on. Anybody who cares enough to be writing about her is nearly always either strongly in favour of, or strongly against, what she espoused. Those are the sources we have to work with and that makes it hard to write a neutral article. As such, the article has sometimes oscillated between hagiography and demonology. I agree that it is currently leaning somewhat towards the former although not as egregiously as it has at some other times. The specific matter you mention could only be included if there is RS coverage of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daveosaurus The alleged antisemitism thing which appears a lot on tumblr for some reason appears to originate in a single retweet of an article in the Washington Times which accurately detailed George Soros's financial support of some pro-LGBT groups. While much anti-Soros discourse clearly has an antisemitic component, neither Berns' tweet nor the article make use of antisemitic language, tropes or even mention his ethnicity. The best source I've found relating to it is an opinion piece in a defunct British online magazine called the Social Review, which makes passing reference to the tweet but is anonymously written. I don't know how good the source is, but I suspect it might not be very good. There is also a Medium article by someone called Mallory Moore. Medium can be used as a valid source for attributed opinion if Moore is acknowledged as being a person of sufficient importance in this field that her viewpoint satisfies WP:DUE. I don't know if that is the case or not, but if it is the accusation of antisemitism can be added. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll restate part of what I said in the last nomination - 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. Along with Maya Forstater, her name comes up enough from both sides when discussing stuff around JK Rowling that providing enough information about her to explain why Rowling would be influenced by her seems like what an encyclopedia should be doing. KJBracey (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The gender critical feminist movement is currently growing around the world and may become as significant as the suffragettes. MB was an early activist in this movement and may become increasingly interesting to researchers of this movement with time. Researcherista (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it odd that obituaries can somehow be discounted as reliable independent sources, or that ONEEVENT applies here. She was notable as a vlogger before her death, as demonstrated in the sources described above by User:Pyxis Solitary.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a notable figure in a notable movement, and the (Personal attack removed). *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly suggest that the renomination was a procedural error, given nothing has changed since the last nomination, except possibly that Berns has become more notable. This for me would necessitate a speedy close. This can be discussed at the talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that she has become more notable but notability is not temporary so she can't be less so than before. Anyway, I agree about the speedy close. Lets put this out of everybody's misery. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the last discussion resulted in a "No Consensus" decision means that notability has not been confirmed. The subject is still presumed notable so the article remains. The result of this AfD may prove otherwise depending on the decision of the closer. Even a speedy close does not mean that, without definitive consensus, the article can not come up for AfD again at the appropriate time. --ARoseWolf 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boynamedsue It was not a procedural error. The IP editor made a good faith request, and I acted upon it in good faith. We are now discussing it in good faith, albeit sometimes with fervour. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no matter the result. --ARoseWolf 17:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf I would like to add that I have no horse in this race. Either outcome is acceptable to me. The discussion and its conduct is important to us all, whatever our opinions on Berns, and whatever our opinions on the article. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Likewise, I know I offered a course of action but that is based solely and coldly on policy with no personal feelings involved whatsoever. I will not say that either course is acceptable to me but I will accept whatever the consensus determines. I still and will continue to believe, solely based on literally written policy and sources provided, the subject is not confirmed notable. --ARoseWolf 19:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf by 'either outcome' I mean consensus. Another 'no consensus close' renders the exercise pointless. I have chosen not to analyse the references nor the text, certainly for the present FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was a notable figure in an increasingly significant debate. Her style was robust but that is irrelevant to the question of deletion. She had an impact, and continues to have an impact on society: JK Rowling cites her as an influence on her own views. Dskjt (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per previous comments. She is notable and well covered in a number of RS. CatCafe (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was discussed at length less than 2 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any new angle with this nom. The last AfD did not reach consensus and no consensus means keep. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 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. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this.Page even in Germany this case is discussed. It is not about the number of followers on you tube, but about the relevance on an important topic. And even the delete wishes are showing how important to keep this article. From the outside it seems more like it about using wikipedia and deleting an article for opinion control. Why would so many want to delete this, if it so irrelevant. I have a wikipedia article in the german Wikipedia. I am an activ director for Opera and Film, but I would would gladly give mine up to keep this article up. Not because I am a fan. I am a straight mid 50s white male. (Yea, i said it) Because I think it's relevant. Carlskwellll (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carlskwellll I greatly respect the work of the feminist movement and the fight for equality among all people, especially being a woman myself. You are correct in saying this has nothing to do with YouTube followers. It also has nothing to do with the importance of anything the subject did or failed to do in their lifetime. Likewise it has nothing to do with my personal views, one way or the other. It comes down to what are considered reliable sources. In my opinion, there is too much room for individual interpretation here. This is why these sources may be used to keep this article and yet another article reliant upon the same type of sources might be deleted. The only difference is the traffic generated to and from the article/AfD. Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion should not be dictated by the popularity of the subject or how well known the subject is. It should also not be guaranteed based on the number of followers an individual may have. Article creation is about the presumption of notability, whether reliable sources MAY exist, in which case the editor is encouraged to add them when creating. Article retention is ALL about the presentation of verifiable reliable independent sources that give the subject significant coverage and whether they DO exist. This is why I suggest people review WP:RSP when looking for reliable sources to make their case at AfD. --ARoseWolf 14:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 WP:1E, 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. Rab V (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced article that asserts notability, passes WP:RS and WP:N, no WP:BLP 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 WP:CSK for a Speedy Keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, it appears you missed the and ... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion (even if we assume the first criterion is met -- it isn't). The validity of your quote of this policy is probably the same as the validity of quoting RS/N/BLP (I note, without any specifics of exactly which sources meet the requirements prescribed by those guidelines). As such, this is a textbook vote (similar to other votes). ProcSock (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I checked on Nexis Uni, and there is a significant mention of Magdalen Berns in the Daily Record. The Times article of June 11 2020 is more than a "passing mention". There also seem to be German-language mentions in der Spiegel and Zeit Online. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an article about JK Rowling then I would agree on The Times source. The Times is a reliable source. But can you define "significant" mention please? Is it 10, 50, 100? Can you point to the guideline that specifies what "significant" mention means? Mentions are mentions and do not add up to notability. Mentions are trivial. No where in Wikipedia does it say that you can add all the trivial mentions up to the sum total of notability. The subject is not controversial to me because I do not look at the what they did in life, only the sources of the article, and the only brigading here seems to be for keeping the article so why are you concerned with the process and why should we Speedy Keep an article where the the goal of the "brigades" of editors brought here is to Keep the article? Editors have acknowledged that there are non-reliable sources heavily relied upon to confer notability that need to be removed yet they are never removed, thus the second nomination of the AfD when no consensus was met last time. The sources being stated above as reliable (Morning Star and National review) are considered by consensus to be biased and politically motivated as per WP:RSP. It is cautioned to be used only where it can be attributed (placed within the article as a quote). The other reliable sources heavily mentioned here are obituaries which are largely the opinion of the author and can not be considered reliable. This, too, may be used where attributed. Attributions should never be used to confirm notability when it has not gained a consensus recognition. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "passing mention" would be a mention in a secondary source that does not assert any notability of the subject. The Times mention asserts the article subject's notability, specifically cite #60 in the WP article. This is in fact the rule: notability is asserted in a secondary source that meets WP:RS, therefore WP:N has been met. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the definition of "significant" mentions and what guideline points me to that definition and number and says they can add up to notability. I know what "passing mention" means but thank you for that definition. We will have to disagree that Cite #60 confers any notability on the subject of this article whatsoever but if I were to say that it did then what other consensus agreed upon reliable sources would you say did this as well? As I stated above, the subject does not fall under one of our SNG categories so multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability. --ARoseWolf 17:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not confer, assert. If a secondary RS asserts notability, that's pretty much proof of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems a classic case of WP:OVERCITE, 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 WP:RS - with nearly all the RS dealing with an event better mentioned on JK Rowling's page. That makes me think it fails WP:ONEEVENT too. It feels very well described by WP:PSEUDO IMO. Hypnotist uk (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Passes WP:GNG many times over. Some of the sources entirely dedicated to Berns don't even mention Rowling, so I see no merit to the WP:ONEEVENT argument. I've also given due consideration to the WP:BASIC / "Opinion" argument, and find it entirely without merit. (Though I'd concede that something like a fight report largely relating the authors personal experience & opinion of the event, could fairly be dismissed as a primary source.) Pyxis Solitary's analyses is compelling. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magdalen_Berns_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1033961979"