Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns

Add links
From 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 no consensus. Opinions are deeply divided about whether the sources for this article are enough, qualitatively and quantitatively, to support a stand-alone biography. Even if one discounts some of the more questionable arguments and opinions, it's clear that there is no consensus about this question. And because the assessment of sources is a matter of editorial judgment about which people can disagree in good faith, it's not a question I can resolve by fiat. Valid arguments have been made on both sides. The article is therefore kept, for now, for lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 07:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen Berns

[edit]

[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 · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Berns was a YouTuber known for her commentary opposing transgender rights advocacy. She recently died after she was diagnosed with glioblastoma; we now have a page largely supported with primary sources and fairly brief mentions in newspapers of Twitter spats she was involved in. I was not able to find significant coverage that would reach the threshold of notability outlined in WP:BASIC. Also worth keeping in mind WP:NOTMEMORIAL in relation to aforementioned notability problems and the article's list of various people who tweeted in support of her. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate and explain how the majority of sources are primary - this clearly is not the case at all. All sources bar Berns' YouTube channel itself are secondary and come from various online news outlets and are not created by Berns herself or anyone working for her, which per Wikipedia guidelines are acceptable. These sources also go into depth beyond trivial mentions, or documenting "Twitter spats".SilverStar6583 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this AFD. It's simply not true that "[a]ll sources bar Berns' YouTube channel itself" are secondary; "primary source" refers to sources which are written by people who are involved with events rather than an outside party summarizing these accounts. For example, the sources relating to her education and software development work cite GitHub pages and a picture from the GNOME foundation website; these are produced by people directly involved with the events in question, rather than secondary sources like newspapers, books, or scholarly journals commenting on them. For more on how to identify primary sources, I suggest reading "Identifying and using primary sources". With respect, I'm not really sure how to characterize the few news articles that exist as anything other than brief discussions of Twitter arguments; what we learn from, say, the Independent article is simply that JK Rowling followed her once and people were not very happy about this because of Berns' stated views. Generally what we're looking for in coverage is something more than, as our guidelines discuss, "brief bursts of news coverage". —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify which of these sources only cover her death or "Twitter feuds"? I have looked through them all and this simply isn't the case - I am asking this question in good faith. The reference of the article about J.K Rowling following her is entirely acceptable as in context, this was a reference for the sentence: "In June 2019, British author J.K. Rowling followed Magdalen Berns on Twitter, bringing her more visibility and prompting criticism towards Rowling from transgender activists." Can I also add that Berns was not known for her "opposing transgender rights advocacy." She was known for her pro-female rights advocacy, including the rights of female transgender people such as transmen and non-binary people whose sex is female.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of 19 September 2019, edits have been made to include more secondary sources. I believe that these are inkeeping with the notability guidelines. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStar6583 (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Pine457 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magdalen Berns was not a “cis” woman and neither did she acknowledge the term as anything but a deliberate insult.
    It’s clear that this page has been created to disparage a young woman who died of cancer less than a week ago. If that’s not good enough reason to delete it then shame on all concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allhalav (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Allhalav: Hi and congratulations to your first edit. You may want to stick to arguments and sign your comments. Thanks, --Malyacko (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is well known among gender critical and radical feminists as well as the transgender activist community. The population affected / interested is no smaller than that of the niche transgender topics that also have wikipedia articles. 98.234.96.130 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 WP:BIO1E 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. SilverserenC 15:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply do not see how this is the case. Most of the sources cited speak in detail about her work and her views, and do not cover only her death or "Twitter feuds". Please specify which sources you are talking about. This is asked in good faith.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reliable sources in the article, such as The Independent and The Post and Courier, discuss only a single event and an event that is far more about J.K. Rowling than about Berns. This very clearly falls under WP:BIO1E and does not confer notability to the subject. Unless you have further meaningful coverage in proper secondary sources, there isn't anywhere near enough notable coverage here for an article. SilverserenC 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to note that post isn't part of Der Freitag's regular news reporting, but rather one of the numerous posts on its "Community" blog section where anyone can publish a piece. Not a reliable source. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which helps minorly in terms of notability, but it's still an article about Berns' death, it is an opinion piece, and it also gives very little information about Berns regardless. It more seems to be about the topic of transgender people and the writer's stance on that. Reading over it, there's literally no biographical information to use other than Berns' date of death and age at the time. SilverserenC 19:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is three days old and still constantly changing with new sources being added and old sources being discarded. I think it is highly premature to declare that the article is incapable of being properly sourced. McPhail (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @McPhail: The point of an AfD is to present such sources to show if an article topic is notable or not. If there are none to present, then that's that. As it is, almost all of the sources in the article currently should be removed for violating primary source rules and for synthesis of information. And there's a lot of bad WP:OR going on, such as linking to her Youtube channel and somehow turning that into a description of what the content is there without an actual source stating such a description. Or the link to her involvement in Google Summer of Code and that being used to reference her "teaching herself to code". That's pretty blatant original research not backed up directly by the sourcing. SilverserenC 22:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the objections:
  • "Largely supported with primary sources": "largely" is not "entirely." There could be a thousand primary sources and they would not count against inclusion. Secondary sources are present and sufficient.
  • "and fairly brief mentions in newspapers" actually help the case for notability. WP:BASIC states "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." Multiple brief discussions are notable. Only trivial mentions are not notable. WP:GNG gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for.
  • "of Twitter spats she was involved in." The Notability guideline does not care about your opinions on the relevance or irrelevance of social media. If reliable sources cover X, then X is notable for Wikipedia.
  • WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not count against the article. It only means that if Notability is not met, then "but we need a memorial" isn't a counterargument. Notability is met.
  • Likewise, "it's still an article about Berns' death". Doesn't count against notability. We often learn the most about a public figure's life when they are dying, or after their death. This is to be expected, and back to policy: nothing says we can't use articles about a person's death.
  • WP:BIO1E simply does not apply. For the sake of argument, even if we were to say that the only coverage is of Twitter incidents, there are at least two such incidents: one with JK Rowling, and one with Rachel McKinnon. BIO1E applies only when we are talking about a single event. See WP:BLP2E which helps to explain BIO1E.
  • Bad WP:OR is a content dispute issue to be resolved outside of AFD. Not relevant to us here right now.
  • On the implication that it's a problem if we can't source biographical details from secondary sources: this is a misunderstanding of WP:BASIC which is very clear. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." We need secondary sources for notability, but it is perfectly fine to use any number of primary sources for biographical content, and these do not count against notability. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life. -Pine457 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Pine457 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is yet another obituary piece that, somehow, still manages to say pretty much nothing about the subject, Magdalen Berns. It is just an opinion piece that doesn't even bother to give any actual information about the subject and their life. It's honestly rather impressive to have so many obituaries that give no usable biographical focus other than age and location. It conveys basically nothing to notability. And this doesn't contribute to notability in any way. It is a two paragraph piece discussing Rachel McKinnon and gives one mention of Berns. That is not how notability works and you seem to be misunderstanding how WP:BIO1E works. Coverage of Twitter feuds, especially when the articles in question are entirely about the other person in the feud and not Berns, does not convey notability. There has yet to be a single secondary source that actually discusses Berns to any direct extent, just opinion pieces of the authors' politics in relation to Berns existing. Notability has yet to be met in any fashion whatsoever, just inclusion of a bunch of mentions and primary sources. SilverserenC 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This is yet another obituary piece that, somehow, still manages to say pretty much nothing about the subject, Magdalen Berns."
On the contrary, it contains several biographical details. It tells us her age, where she lived, what she was dying of, that she was a feminist, that she was a YouTuber with over 30k subscribers, that JK Rowling was one of her Twitter followers, that Berns was criticized by Rachel McKinnon, and it tells us some of the substance of her politicial views which made her controversial. Regardless of how much more we might wish it said, it is not a trivial mention, and it is a reliable secondary source. That is what WP:N requires. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life. Biographical details can be taken from primary sources.
"And this doesn't contribute to notability in any way. It is a two paragraph piece discussing Rachel McKinnon and gives one mention of Berns. That is not how notability works"
That's arguable, and not as clear-cut as you seem to think. The relevant question here is only whether it is trivial, for which we have Bill Clinton's band name as an example. I would argue that because the controversy centers on the substance of Berns' views, and because the content of those views are described here, it is more substantive than trivial.
"and you seem to be misunderstanding how WP:BIO1E works."
With respect, I know exactly how it works because I read it today. This is not esoteric. It's right here in plain English. "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event" is when BIO1E applies. The secondary sources here cover more than one event, so BIO1E does not apply. This is very clearly worded, not a matter of opinion or interpretation.
"Coverage of Twitter feuds, especially when the articles in question are entirely about the other person in the feud and not Berns, does not convey notability."
Your opinion here is not backed by any policy or guideline. The relevant guidelines make no distinctions about the importance of events except that they be covered by secondary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to determine notability, not wiki editors' opinions on what sounds important.
I sympathize, I'm old and I want to feel like no social media is ever important, but differences of opinions are why Wikipedia has guidelines, and the guidelines do not differentiate between reliable sources reporting on Twitter discussions, reliable sources reporting on formal debates, or reliable sources reporting on a series of letters printed in an academic journal.
So there's no misunderstanding, she did not instigate these Twitter discussions. Other people found cause to argue about her as a public figure.
"There has yet to be a single secondary source that actually discusses Berns to any direct extent, just opinion pieces of the authors' politics in relation to Berns existing. "
I reiterate, it is perfectly fine to use any number of primary sources for biographical content, and these do not count against notability. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life.
Berns is not notable for the quotidian details of her life, though of course those should be included where possible. She is known for her lectures on controversial ideas, and she is WP:Notable because the public discussions those lectures engendered spread far enough to be covered in reliable secondary sources. That is all that the guideline requires. -Pine457 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: there is no editor consensus on National Review being a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Using a source whose reliability is iffy and is known for being partisan is questionable for controversial subjects like this and ill-advised when there is a dearth of other reliable sources that can balance it out. Rab V (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that it must be used with caution, and not for sourcing disputed claims. That's not a problem here, as there is nothing disputed about where she lived, that she was a YouTuber, etc. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: simply not notable on her own merits, with the only third party sources that are actually about her I can find is a hagiography in the National Review. And even if the NR source counts — which I don't think is enough, and is arguably not independent enough to satisfy WP:N — her entire notability rests on one thing: her death. However, she may warrant a mention in the Rachel McKinnon article. Sceptre (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the National Review, there is also the AfterEllen article mentioned earlier. Her notability begins before her death, as The Independent was calling her famous before that. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AfterEllen would be a reliable source; I don't know that they have any public editorial policy and most of their content resembles blog posts. WP:RS also mentions sources seen as extremist are questionable. They have been denounced by former editors and other lgbt media organizations for having an anti-trans stance, see this link for details.Rab V (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not anti-trans. For those who are unaware, this subject is part of the controversy around feminist views on transgender topics. You can't use one side of that controversy to assert that the other side is extremist. For context, this editorial by The Guardian was likewise denounced as transphobic for saying such hateful things as "This is a complex issue that society needs to consider thoughtfully." -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any death is tragic but she appears to be famous only among a very small set of anti-trans activists who have latched onto her death to make some point; I had never heard of her before that. Her twitter account had 14K followers and her Youtube account had 30K; neither indicate any widespread fame. Paul Moloney (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This assumption about who's interested doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. The article's creator appears not to have been motivated by the specifics of her politics, but rather because she was a well known Scottish person. Notability depends on coverage in secondary sources, not follower counts. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reference BIO1E and BLP1E because some editors erroneously believe that these policies state, more or less, that if someone is notable for one thing then it means the subject should not have an article. These policies (and their friends and neighbors like WP:CRIME), in actuality, address whether a participant in an event should have a stand-alone article independently of that event. For example, if there was a shooting on Sesame Street and the shooter was Big Bird, and Big Bird was not notable for anything other than the Sesame Street Shooting, then Big Bird should not have an article if the Sesame Street Shooting article exists. On the other hand, if Big Bird had independent notability, he'd have his own article in addition to the Sesame Street Shooting. That's why BIO1E/BLP1E do not apply here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except they perfectly apply. The twitter feuds, as shown from the coverage of them, were entirely focused on as events with the other people. Berns was not the important part of them. So mentioning the events in the real subjects' article, such as J.K. Rowling's, would be appropriate. But there's no notability to be conferred on the briefly mentioned other person in either event. Not without...well, actual in-depth coverage from secondary sources on Berns herself. SilverserenC 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the actual guideline, BIO1E applies "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event". That is what the numeral 1 refers to. Any sincere attempt to claim otherwise must grapple with the actual words. This is not the place to argue that the guideline ought to be changed, nor to imply that it ought to have meant something diametrically opposed to its plain meaning. See WP:BLP2E if you're uncertain.
"So being in two Twitter feuds rather than one confers notability for a biographical article?" It can, if the Twitter discussions (about her, she was not in them) are the subjects of coverage in reliable sources. What it indisputedly means is that BIO1E does not apply. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not particularly clear what your position is from this comment. If your position is that 1E does not apply because Berns is independently notable, you should say specifically why by pointing to significant coverage; simply averring a contradiction just begs the question. I don't think BLP1E is the specific issue here, but I can see why others brought it up: the coverage of all events is so paltry it would be easy to say only one event is even borderline notable. I would ask anyone who think Berns is notable to carefully consider the basic reasoning behind our notability criteria: we want coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As it stands, we have to do significant original research to extract even basic biographical details: we don't have any secondary sourcing on her software development work, the article inexplicably deems it necessary to cite Wordpress blog "forwomen.scot" to even explain the circumstances of her channel's creation, and the circumstances of her death are entirely cited to primary sources. If there were sources available to improve the article to a reasonable standard, I'd support that—but we're working on nothing. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'we want coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."'
And that is for the specific items that confer notability. For example, we are not permitted to guess at McKinnon's motivations in encouraging celebration of her death, we can only report what the secondary sources say. But WP:BASIC says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article". I'm sorry to bold this at you, but this is the third time I've had to say it. We need to rely on what the guideline actually says, and it says we don't need to be able to source everything from secondary sources.
"As it stands, we have to do significant original research to extract even basic biographical details".
That is not what original research means. No one has had to call up Berns' family for biographical details, or synthesize additional assumptions out of the available sources. Primary sources are used, and primary sources are allowed.
"we don't have any secondary sourcing on her software development work,"
We don't need them. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article.
'the article inexplicably deems it necessary to cite Wordpress blog "forwomen.scot"'
That's a content dispute issue which can be resolved at any time, it is not a matter for AFD.
"and the circumstances of her death are entirely cited to primary sources."
Not true, both the National Review and AfterEllen are secondary sources, but this would be irrelvant even if true, since primary sources may be used to support content in an article. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the third time you've had to say something, people have almost certainly already heard you; the problem is simply that we disagree. Primary sources can of course be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject (what we're here to discuss); the amount of secondary sourcing available is a clear factor in how we judge notability (per WP:GNG, [a]vailability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.) As regards original research, I think you've missed several clear examples of it. For instance, we cite an image of Berns speaking at a conference to support the claim she "developed the Java ATK Wrapper, a module to translate Swing events for the Accessibility Toolkit.", but we have no way of knowing she was the one who developed it or what the ATK Wrapper was without some form of synthesis; the caption merely says she worked on it at one time. As regards National Review and AfterEllen, I'm not convinced that either are the reliable sources we would require to demonstrate notability. The AfterEllen piece is an editorial (not usually considered RS for statements of fact) and the National Review piece is from "The Corner", a blog section not subject to National Review's usual editorial standards. (Note that our RSP entry indicates people disagree whether NR is acceptable sourcing even in general). —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'If this is the third time you've had to say something, people have almost certainly already heard you; the problem is simply that we disagree.'
Then you disagree with the guideline, not me, since all I've been doing is quoting the guideline. Fine, but take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability, not here. Pointing to the guideline while ignoring what it actually says is argument by assertion.
'Primary sources can of course be used to support content in an article, but "they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" (what we're here to discuss)'
A fact I pointed out in my first comment, so quoting it back to me like it's news does suggest you aren't paying attention. My point is you should stop implying that the presence of primary sources is a problem. It is not.
'As regards original research, I think you've missed several clear examples of it. For instance, we cite an image of Berns speaking at a conference to support the claim she "developed the Java ATK Wrapper,'
If you think that wording is not supported by the link, go WP:FIXIT. That's a minor content dispute, not an argument for article deletion.
'The AfterEllen piece is an editorial (not usually considered RS for statements of fact) and the National Review piece is from "The Corner", a blog section not subject to National Review's usual editorial standards.'
WP:NEWSORG says "rarely," not never. Here they only need to be used for uncontroversial statements like where she lived. They're reliable for that purpose. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berns' critics misunderstood, or misrepresented, her position as having been "there is no such thing as a transwoman". Her position, as clearly and repeatedly stated, was in fact that transwomen are born male and therefore have very different experiences and needs as those people who are born female. She rejected the term "cis", believing that it was antifeminist to assert that females get a prefix to their womanhood based on their conformity to sex role stereotypes, and certainly did not have a stance on "ciswomen's rights". She did have a strong stance against male people adopting the identity "transwoman" and demanding access to lesbian spaces based on self-identification alone, which attracted her a great many critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.214.183 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the first part of what you say is true then we would have verifiability problem, in addition to everything else mentioned above. The rest of what you say does not dispute the content of the article. It merely objects to the language used and, if anything, seems to support the very claim that you are objecting to but I don't want to get into that as it doesn't really bear on the deletion arguments. What is relevant here is notability and verifiability. If we can not even accurately and reliably source the beliefs that somebody is claimed to be notable for then that is a complete verifiability fail and it also makes the claim to notability look much more tenuous.
She is definitely not notable as a YouTuber. Many other people have vastly more subscribers and do not get considered notable just for that. Similarly, she is not notable as a software developer. She does seem to be slightly more plausibly notable for her spats with, or championing by, other more notable people but notability is not inherited. Some of the controversies seem to confer some notability but I am not sure how much.
I'm not quite confident enough in her lack of notability to !vote "delete" here (I mean, the fact that I had heard her name and looked her up proves that the article serves some purpose) but what I am not seeing is anything that makes it a "keep" either. Also the article is pretty much an orphan. --[[User:

|DanielRigal]] (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If the first part of what you say is true then we would have verifiability problem,"
Everyone who has ever been criticized was also misinterpreted. The existence of someone's misinterpretation somewhere does not present a verifiability problem. We just include what we can source.
"She is definitely not notable as a YouTuber. Many other people have vastly more subscribers and do not get considered notable just for that."
Notability is not measured like that. She could have 10 subscribers and be WP:Notable, or she could have 10 million and not be WP:Notable. See what notability is not, Berns is a "Ted" in this example.
"She does seem to be slightly more plausibly notable for her spats with, or championing by, other more notable people but notability is not inherited."
The claim is not that she is notable because other notable people talked about her. She could have been talked about only by unknown people and she'd still be notable if reliable sources had covered the discussions. (Hypothetically. Realistically that wouldn't have been reported, but you see my point.) Notability depends on reliable secondary sources, that's all the guideline requires.
"Also the article is pretty much an orphan."
True, but that can be fixed later. It would be sensibly linked from Feminist views on transgender topics, and likely some in the See also section of that article. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, but the fact that we have a problem sourcing the basics of a BLP bio suggests that maybe the subject has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources either to demonstrate notability or to make a reliable BLP biographical article possible. That certainly is a matter for an AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be morbidly technical but this is not a BLP. In any event, the mere existence of a dispute about the content doesn't mean it fails inclusion guidelines. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Yes. That was a very unfortunate mistake on my part. WP:BLP can apply to the recently deceased and my brain flipped over into BLP mode and didn't flip back when I wrote that. I apologise if I upset or offended anybody. I've struck it out and replaced it with what I should have said. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to delete. I'm coming to see this article as a coatrack for axe grinding more than anything else. (I saw somebody attempting to insert the POV euphemism "gender critical" and, although that was very swiftly removed, it made me realise what was going on with this article.) I appreciate that some people are making genuine efforts to try to get it back on track but I don't think that this can succeed. There is not enough source material to ground a decent, neutral biographical article and, in the absence of sufficient sources, the article would be very likely to remain a battleground/dumpinground if kept. It may be that she does come to be seen as a hero/villain of a transphobic movement at some point in the future. If that does happen then the article can be recreated and explain how that happened, but this is not the case at the moment and it is certainly not our job to help that to happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, BIO1E does not apply. BIO1E applies (as per the policy) in the following situation: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. That's not the case here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 18:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not apply, there should be significant coverage in reliable sources of this person's other works, and there is not. This article is hinged on a Twitter follow from J.K Rowling and a subsequent spat. I'd suggest that if Berns had not died this might be a WP:TOOSOON as coverage might've expanded but as it is, it just isn't there.Battleofalma (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I have just added information that speaks directly to her notability from a new obituary in the UK Morning Star newspaper. Brizzo82 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per the "reliable sources" guidance, Morning Star's reliability depends on context. It is openly partisan - described by the New Statesman as "Britain's last communist newspaper"- but it is a serious publication, founded in 1930, and quotes from its published obituary on a prominent left-wing figure are appropriate in this context.Brizzo82 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability depends on something being an actual reliable source and having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". IE being an actual news organization. Community-created material is inherently not something with reliable source backing (which is precisely why Wikipedia itself would fail the reliable source policy). SilverserenC 23:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Morning Star is run by experienced, professional journalists. It may - as you say - include "community-written articles", but such articles would undergo an editing process, and are effectively the same as any opinion piece written by a non-journalist in any newspaper. The Morning Star holds a prominent and substantial place in the history of left-wing British journalism, dating back 90 years. The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, said the Daily Star "is the most precious and only voice we have in the daily media". It is highly partisan, but openly so, and a source is not considered unreliable just because it is partisan (see Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources). Brizzo82 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British newspaper Morning Star is included in the WP:RS/P list. Also, keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't matter even if it were true. WP:BASIC states "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." Multiple brief discussions are notable. Only trivial mentions are not notable. WP:GNG gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see these "multiple independent sources". So far we have a story about JK Rowling in the Independent and an obituary in the Morning Star. The rest are not reliable sources, or, in the case of the Evening Standard, trivial mentions. Youtubers are expected to "meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT" (see WP:NYOUTUBE) and I'm not convinced that the subject of this article does. There has not been significant coverage of Berns and there aren't enough reliable sources that cover her primarily and in-depth. Without that, it's going to be impossible to write a good article without doing original research, as has been mentioned above. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest are not reliable sources, or, in the case of the Evening Standard, trivial mentions.
They are all reliable sources for at least uncontroversial statements like where she lived, which is all they need to be used for. No one has claimed that the Evening Standard's mention is not trivial, so that's a red herring. The shorter coverage in very reliable sources like The Independent, Snopes, The Post and Courier, and Inside Higher Ed are more than trivial mentions because they cover her controversial ideas, which are precisely what she is notable for. For comparison, the Evening Standard's mention is trivial, and it is by viewing these other articles against the Evening Standard's that we can see the others are brief but informative, not trivial.
Youtubers are expected to "meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT" (see WP:NYOUTUBE)
No, an article never needs to meet more than one notability guideline. WP:Notability is very clear on this: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". One or the other is always sufficient. If the essay at WP:NYOUTUBE suggests otherwise, then the essay is mistaken. Policies > guidelines > essays.
there aren't enough reliable sources that cover her primarily and in-depth.
You're asking again for something that isn't required. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
it's going to be impossible to write a good article without doing original research,
Yet despite this assertion, the article has already been written without original research. The one, exactly one specific complaint about OR has already been fixed. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of citations given on the page are not from what are widely known sources or widely regarded as reliable sources. The person has received almost no coverage by reliable or well known sources. Most of what is written can be contested based off of the reliability of the sources used. Helper201 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of citations given on the page
If there are some citations which don't count toward notability (and there are, for the most part we're talking about some primary sources), their presence also does not count against notability. There could be a thousand citations which don't help notability for one reason or another, but they wouldn't hurt.
are not from what are widely known sources
There is no requirement that they be widely known, although many are, such as The Independent, Snopes, The Post and Courier, Inside Higher Ed, National Review, Spiked (magazine).
or widely regarded as reliable sources.
There don't need to be dozens of reliable sources, but there are multiple, and that's what WP:Notability asks for. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly untrue. The first paragraph of my first edit was an argument for notability: 'The Notability guideline is satisfied. Berns is the central subject of this article at the National Review (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 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 this link from Inside Higher Ed still on the Talk page, add up to further significant coverage, as WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".'
By my count I've affirmatively argued for notability twice more since then. You may disagree with my arguments for notability, but it is utterly false to say that I haven't made them. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think this entry should be deleted just because some people didn’t agree with Magdalen’s opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.60.90 (talk • contribs)
Indeed. That is not a valid reason for deletion, and I don't think that anybody is proposing that it is, but neither is agreeing with her a reason to keep the article. A Wikipedia article is not an endorsement of a person as being good or bad, only as being notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @4meter4: Can you explain this vote? As multiple people have pointed out, Pine has made no actual argument for notability, just against other policies. What exactly are the secondary reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject? SilverserenC 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, no one but you has made this plainly untrue claim. Nor have I argued against any policies. See above, the first paragraph of my first edit was an argument for notability.
Putting aside the longer pieces such as the National Review, we still have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, this much is clear (The Independent, The Post and Courier, etc). It seems the bulk of the disagreement comes down to whether the coverage in these sources is trivial or not. We do have some guidance on what constitutes a trivial mention: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.'
Ultimately, though, whether they are trivial or not is a matter for each of us to judge. In they end, they are non-trivial if enough of us decide they are non-trivial, or the reverse.
To summarize yet again, my argument for considering them non-trivial is that they are each about her ideas, and each can be used to source our coverage of at least one of those ideas, and it is precisely her lectures on controversial ideas for which she is notable. These sources are thus unlike Walker's mention of Clinton's high school band, as the coverage in each case is both longer and precisely relevant to what makes Berns notable. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the disagreements about the quality and significance of the sources, and the recentness of the subject's death, I think this would benefit from more time to let editors discuss the sources and perhaps surface new ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverseren: The sources for her scholarships, the WES and GNOME foundations. The National Review, Evening Standard, and Pink News I suppose you'd classify as "community sections", but I think they have a far reach.Fred (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except far reach has nothing to do with notability. Youtubers with millions of followers have far reach, but them doing a video on someone wouldn't contribute to notability at all. The whole point of notability is that there is coverage from reliable sources of information. And the problem with community sections is that anyone can write articles for them and they aren't subject to editorial oversight like actual journalists for the papers are. Hence, they don't meet notability standards as required by WP:N and WP:RS. SilverserenC 00:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This does remind me a bit of the discussion we had on the WP:WiR with Jimbo about the word 'dilettante'. In so far, as the sources for women described as such could probably be called community sections. Perhaps, we are not on the same page, but perhaps there is some guidance there. I really appreciate that there is a separate WP:PROF and WP:CRIME. I do not know of one pertaining to youtubers, activists, programmer, or something else we might describe Berns as. I see in this thread, you discredit the obituary in the Morning Star. I will plan to search for an obituary on Proquest to see if I can find a local Edinburgh newspaper, next time I go through the academic firewall.Fred (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
update: So, I had no luck in finding sources about Berns in Proquest or Scopus at the moment. There is a very short obit on Lecacy.com which was simultaneously published in the Edinburgh News. Also, I was quickly skimmed through Despina Stratigakos (2016:71), which mentioned a seven day grace period on wikipedia between AfC and AfD, but there was no footnote with further info. So I wonder if something similar might apply. I also see Posie Parker has now published in Spiked, so I anticipate other new sources appearing.Fred (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For youtubers, see WP:NYOUTUBE, according to which youtubers are expected to meet WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. As far as I can tell, the subject of this article falls far short of those requirements. Retinalsummer (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article never needs to meet more than one notability guideline. WP:Notability is very clear on this: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". One or the other is always sufficient. If the essay at WP:NYOUTUBE suggests otherwise, then the essay is mistaken. Policies > guidelines > essays. (Copied from above, apologies, but it's easier than rewording it.) -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are mostly passing mentions or fail WP:RS (note that the Morning Star, as mentioned above, is not a WP:RS 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. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the Morning Star doesn't have "proper editorial controls"? What's your source for this? Brizzo82 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an assumption about bias, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in other, above, discussion about MS : The British newspaper Morning Star is included in the WP:RS/P list. Also, keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's supposed to vaguely imply that it's somehow unacceptable, but it's fine and normal: it's called guest journalism, and it's subject to the same editorial review as anything else they'd publish. To your claim of "another," the National Review's coverage was from a journalist under their regular employ, as was The Independent's, and so on. -Pine457 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subject is notable in the UK." What does that even mean? Do you have reliable secondary source coverage from the UK to back up that claimed notability? Just making the claim that a subject is notable without evidence is pretty much worthless. SilverserenC 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Independent, Spiked, and Morning Star. It is to be expected that more sources are UK-based, since that's where she lived. -Pine457 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions says it is for discussions without much participation, or without much policy-based argument: 'relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.' Please consider undoing the relist and giving us a proper close. -Pine457 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe a "no-consensus close" is preferable in this instance. I believe a clear consensus can be reached. I believe this AfD will benefit from a second relisting, as more time passes since the subject's death. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time the AfD has been re-listed: #1 on 24 September 2019 and #2 on 2 October 2019. It's not unusual for an AfD to stay open for 30 days, but regardless of how much interest or not is generated by a relisting the AfD cannot stay open indefinitely. This AfD was created on 17 September 2019 — it should be closed on 17 October 2019, even if it's a "no-consensus" close. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Relisting is not intended for discussions with many participants and policy-based arguments. It is supposed to be used if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy. This outcome, where there were many participants and policy-based arguments, and "no consensus" would apply at the time of closing, but the discussion gets relisted anyway, is what the guideline made pains to discourage. If you're still unwilling to close it, I won't ping you again, but I think the guideline was misapplied. -Pine457 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were relatively few dispassionate experienced editors participating in this AfD. This discussion can benefit from other voices. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two valid reasons for relisting, and that's not one of them. If you think it should be, you should suggest it at the guideline's talk page. -Pine457 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "relist" would be one of the options available to the closing admin at the normal closing time, and they can figure out for themselves whether it's the right one. Fwiw I think I'm dispassionate and experienced. Dispassionate because I'd never heard of the person before a few days ago and am not at all engaged with the areas where she was controversial. I happened across her name, did a web search, and found the wikipedia article with the afd template on top, so I commented. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There were relatively few dispassionate experienced editors participating in this AfD."
Where is the Wikipedia policy that requires participants in AfDs to be "dispassionate" and "experienced" editors? Since when do AfDs and ANIs require editors to have an approved set of credentials in order to engage in them? I'm sorry, but this reasoning for relisting the AfD again is total b.s.
I did not know who Magdalen Berns was until 28 September 2019, when I was checking out the biographical subjects that had been tagged with [[Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism]] — which can no longer be done in BLPs without including in-text attribution in the article. If the responses from editors to this AfD have not meet your POV criteria, well ... too bad, so sad. Bite the bullet and move on to another holy grail. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they're inexperienced they may have poor understanding of what Wikipedia is looking for in deciding whether to delete or keep an article; also, if they just showed up, they may have been recruited. If they're passionately for or against keeping the article, that can put their desires in conflict with wikipedia's. So it does help to have some detached viewpoints. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"they may have been recruited." This is not my first rodeo, and my experience with those who are suspicious about recruitment is that the ones who point fingers have social media accounts that they, themselves, use to influence opinions and recruit respondents. Just as liars think that everyone else is also a liar, those who recruit think that others are also doing it — and they become paranoid about other editors when their point of view starts to lose ground.
"If they're passionately for or against keeping the article, that can put their desires in conflict with wikipedia's." A Wikipedia article is edited because an editor has an interest in editing it. The same applies to participating in an AfD: if an editor has an interest in the subject, he/she will contribute to this AfD.
"So it does help to have some detached viewpoints."
That's not how human nature works. The moment someone decides to participate in an AfD they do so because they have a viewpoint about it. No one who joins a discussion is ever completely impartial. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While those are potential issues, 173, I think the guidelines are already written with them in mind. We should reiterate that no one should feel discouraged from participating here. As a general rule, Wikipedia does not care whether someone is experienced. New people are supposed to participate fully, and their ideas do not count for any less. A new user can read and understand the relevant policies on their first day, while some experienced users act like they skimmed the summaries once years ago. So this guideline looks for arguments based on policy, not experience. -Pine457 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have some parts of that backwards but this isn't the place for a philosophy discussion. By long observed practice, !votes of new users in contested afd's tend to be downweighted or uncounted during closing. Also, "having an opinion" is much different from "OMG the world is going to end if the discussion doesn't close as X". That's what I mean by passionate. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat of an oversimplification. The deletion guideline for administrators does speak to devaluing some opinions when "there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith." However, simply being new is not one of the criteria for determining this, let alone being inexperienced. (I erred in conflating new and inexperienced a couple comments ago, they are different things.) Anyway, we should reiterate that no one should feel discouraged from participating here. Asking for "experienced editors," and wrongly implying that inexperienced users' contributions are less valuable, is likely to have a chilling effect on participation. No one should be second-guessing whether their participation is desired. -Pine457 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A great deal of the opposition to this article's existence seems to be premised on objections to Berns' perceived "transphobia". Whether or not Berns was transphobic isn't the issue here, and is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability. An individual's notability is not premised on how good or bad a person they are/were. The article, and the many references within it demonstrate beyond question Berns' notability, but the strength of debate she has inspired on the article's talk page, and indeed this page only serves to illustrate that further. The article's notability seems beyond questions, and is ironically bolstered by those wishing to have it deleted. A listing for a genuinely non-notable individual would simply not inspire this level of debate. Jackf834 (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, notability is independent of whether a person is/was good or bad. We see some people making "keep" arguments based on agreeing with her opinions too, so your point cuts both ways.
I don't agree that the notability issue is anything like as clear-cut as you say. She seems to have attracted very little coverage during her life and it is only since her death (or maybe very shortly before) that there has been a concerted effort to make her into something that she wasn't, i.e. something like the Horst Wessel of transphobia. I believe that this article can be seen as a part of that effort, just as the obituaries published in hard right and far-left publications which never covered her when she was alive can also be seen as a part of that effort. Our job will be to document this mythologising process, if it is successful, but it is not Wikipedia's job to pre-empt its success and it is certainly not to Wikipedia's job to assist in the process itself. I say this both to protect Wikipedia from being misused as a tool to attempt to "edit reality" and also out of sympathy for her surviving relatives and friends. It must be bad enough to have lost somebody that young without having to know that she is immortalised in a Wikipedia article that gives prominence to her most negative beliefs. She is nowhere near being notable enough that we would be remiss in lacking an article about her so surely it is kinder to everybody to just let this article go, for the time being at least. (Yes, I know that arguing for kindness is not based in policy but when notability is borderline then maybe it can be a consideration in deciding which way to go?) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to have attracted very little coverage during her life
Wikipedia makes no distinction between pre- and post-mortem coverage, and the coverage which does exist in "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" per WP:BASIC.
and it is only since her death (or maybe very shortly before)
The unstated implication here: sources should not count if they are written after the subject's death. Such reasoning has no basis in Wikipedia policy.
that there has been a concerted effort to make her into something that she wasn't,
A public figure dies and some news organizations make note of her passing. This is a normal event, and it is bizarre to assert that the mere decision to talk about her is itself dishonest.
i.e. something like the Horst Wessel of transphobia.
Fantastic irony. Shortly after discussing how this AFD has gone on long enough, Godwin's law is invoked. For those who don't recognize the name, Horst Wessel was a Nazi leader of the SA in Berlin. And this is supposed to be a serious comparison.
Magdalen Berns is not a martyr. She died from a glioblastoma. People who respected her work wrote about her when that work ended. It is grotesque to claim that simply writing about someone after they died is akin to Goebbels manufacturing a Nazi martyr.
I believe that this article can be seen as a part of that effort
Available evidence contradicts your belief: the article's creator appears to have been interested in her because she had ties to Scotland, not the substance of her politics.
just as the obituaries published in hard right
National Review is a mainstream conservative publication in the US. Spiked is libertarian. Neither are hard right, i.e. fascist.
publications which never covered her when she was alive
Partisan publications overwhelmingly focus on people who they disagree with, so this objection doesn't mean much.
and it is certainly not to Wikipedia's job to assist in the process itself.
What matters is Wikipedia:Notability, period. If she's WP:Notable, then it's appropriate to have an article about her, and there is no room for complaints about any allegedly unfortunate results of keeping an article that meets WP:N.
also out of sympathy for her surviving relatives and friends.
Her family is capable of expressing their desires if they wish to. Her sister was the last person to log in to Magdalen's Twitter account. Do not presume that their personal desires secretly line up with your politics.
a Wikipedia article that gives prominence to her most negative beliefs.
Hold on. These are not negative beliefs. Magdalen was for the protection of women's spaces. You and she would have disagreed about what that should entail, to the point that you've convinced yourself she's basically a Nazi, but most normal people look at this debate (for a summary, see The New Yorker: What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism) and understand there are well-meaning people on both sides.
(Yes, I know that arguing for kindness is not based in policy but when notability is borderline then maybe it can be a consideration in deciding which way to go?
You are not advocating kindness. You want the deletion of an article on a woman who you've compared to a Nazi. If you actually cared about her family you would not have compared her to Horst Wessel.
Regardless, we cannot presume to know what her family wants. If they have a preference, they are capable of voicing it. They're most likely proud of her. We can only go on what Wikipedia's policies support.
For anyone who skipped to the end, we have significant coverage of her as the primary subject in three sources, the National Review, Morning Star, and Spiked. That would already satisfy WP:BASIC, but additionally we have coverage in several other reliable sources which adds up to contribute to WP:N. My argument for considering those non-trivial is that they are each about her ideas, and each can be used to source our coverage of at least one of those ideas, and it is her lectures on controversial ideas for which she is notable. These sources are thus unlike Walker's mention of Clinton's high school band, as the coverage in each case is both longer and relevant to what makes Berns notable. -Pine457 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The far left source I was referring to was the Morning Star although I now realise that I should have been more clear having just looked up Spiked's rather odd history.
I explicitly did not compare her to Horst Wessel. I pointed out that some people are trying to build up a mythology or cult around her in a similar way and it is not for us to assist in that process. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Star is far left, that's not in dispute. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's a mighty unusual coincidence that you called the National Review "hard right," which means fascist, at the same time that you compared her to Horst Wessel, and this isn't supposed to mean anything. You could have picked anyone from category:martyrs to make your point, and you chose a Nazi. But hey, just a coincidence.
I pointed out that some people are trying to build up a mythology or cult around her in a similar way
A claim you have absolutely failed to argue. Some publications wrote about her after her death. "Mythology!" "Cult!" Did they call her a martyr? Do you have any quotes that back up your claim? Because if not, then the logic is simply that anyone who writes anything positive about someone after their death is trying to make them into a martyr. You're the only one talking about her in these terms, no one else is. Everyone else is just saying a feminist YouTuber who we admired died from glioblastoma, it's sad, let's remember what she did. -Pine457 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only discovered this article because this was all over some parts of Twitter and it was clear that something odd was going on but I didn't know what it was so I looked her up and found very little except for this article which was already at AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd when people mark the passing of someone whose work moved them in some way. -Pine457 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's more than one event covered in reliable sources, then BLP1E does not apply. There's no in-between. For the sake of argument, even if we were to say that the only coverage is of Twitter incidents (though it is not), there are at least two such incidents: one with JK Rowling, and one with Rachel McKinnon. -Pine457 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I striked my mention of WP:BLP1E per Pine457 comments in the AfD, which I did not read in full before. Weak as I'm still looking for continued coverage beyond the initial 3 months period (WP:10YT), but on the other hand, three months is already much more than some of the articles about ephemeral events with coverage during a just a few days that sometimes make into AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Magdalen was a central part of the trans-exclusive feminist community to which she belonged, as this article indicates, but she simply was not Wikipedia-level notable. Someone has gone to a great deal of effort to provide sources for her article. They break down as follows:
    • 11 obituaries, including her family obituary in the local press.
    • 9 sources made by Magdalen, or by the organisation she founded, ForWomen.scot.
    • 9 sources that are actually about somebody else, such as J.K. Rowling or Rachel MacKinnon. One of these is there only to support the statement that Graham Linehan is "a critic of the 'transgender movement'", and does not mention Magdalen at all.
    • 3 barely tangential sources - lists of names on which Magdalen appears.
That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, describing her attack. We simply don't have multiple reliable sources that "[address] the topic directly and in detail". Vashti (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11 obituaries, including her family obituary in the local press.
You're lumping together different types of articles here, then dismissing them all as though they were all paid classifieds. Some kinds of obituaries are paid, and don't count toward notability (though they don't count against it). Other pieces you're lumping in here are full news articles, however, and they do count. News articles addressing the subject directly in independent reliable sources is what WP:N asks for, and there's no secret unwritten rule that articles covering the subject's death don't count.
9 sources that are actually about somebody else, such as J.K. Rowling or Rachel MacKinnon.
These contribute to notability, besides the one about Linehan. WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, describing her attack.
Except for the other articles which are entirely about her, in the Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, and the other article in AfterEllen. That's multiple. -Pine457 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that you see all these preexisting minor sources as adding up to a picture of notability. I think the "multiple secondary sources" line is being misinterpreted in this case, and these sources add up to a picture of non-notability. What we have here is a young woman who got Twitter followed by J.K. Rowling, causing a storm of outrage. That does not make *her* notable; the coverage is not *addressing* Magdalen, other than to explain who she is at moderate length (because since she's not notable, the reader is unlikely to know). This wasn't an event Magdalen was directly involved in. The coverage is not addressing her "directly and in detail".
In the same way, Rachel MacKinnon, a public figure, drew attention for abusing Magdalen in relation to her cancer diagnosis. This again is not an event that makes *Magdalen* notable. The coverage does not address Magdalen "directly and in detail".
You can stretch WP:N to say she is covered in "multiple secondary sources", but she absolutely does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. You could make a case at the outside for WP:CREATIVE, but none of these sources have Magdalen's work as a focus; Magdalen herself and her death are the focus. I know you're going to come back with "she only needs to meet WP:GNG", but there is a reason there are subpolicies to tell us what a notable creative artist or academic looks like.
It seems to me that the WP:BLP1E is her death; I certainly didn't mean to suggest that none of the obituary articles were RS. If the Twitter spats contributed to notability, she would have had a page long before she died. It ought to be clear before long at all whether she will be notable in ten years; IMO that would be a better time for an article. Vashti (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that I think very much needs to be considered is that, given the nature of virtually all articles being obituaries, it would be impossible *at this time* to write anything other than a hagiography. A year from now, when the dust has settled and her legacy is clearer, is when this article should be written. Vashti (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your argument can be summed up as: this person and these events are not important, therefore news coverage which might indicate notability should be disregarded. But that's backward. We have the WP:Notability guidelines because we can't agree on what's important. Instead, we use the guidelines as a proxy for importance, and if certain indicators, like enough coverage in reliable sources, are present, then the person or thing is likely to merit a Wikipedia entry. The independent coverage is all we have. We can't start from the premise that, for example, a discussion on Twitter is or is not important (where younger and older Wikipedians would tend to disagree). We can only look to whether reliable sources covered it.
That does not make *her* notable; the coverage is not *addressing* Magdalen,
WP:GNG is clear: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It's perfectly fine that Rowling or McKinnon are the primary subjects of some articles, these still count for Berns.
(GNG then gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for. And it does, as you say, explain who she is at moderate length.)
(because since she's not notable, the reader is unlikely to know).
If a journalist telling us who someone is means the person is not notable, then there are only a few hundred notable people in the world. Do you recognize all these names? If I heard that Dave Loebsack and Blaine Luetkemeyer made a deal, I'd be dumbfounded. Did one of them buy a used car from the other?
There is no possible way to read the guidelines such that media coverage somehow confers a negative amount of notability.
This wasn't an event Magdalen was directly involved in.
The guidelines don't care. It's interesting that other people found cause to discuss her without her participation, but the guideline only cares whether independent reliable sources relay that fact to us.
The coverage is not addressing her "directly and in detail".
It doesn't need to. GNG says she doesn't need to be the main topic of the coverage, and WP:BASIC elaborates further: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.
We get coverage addressing her directly and in detail from the Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, and AfterEllen.
I know you're going to come back with "she only needs to meet WP:GNG",
You're right, the introduction to WP:N couldn't be clearer: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, emphasis mine.
but there is a reason there are subpolicies to tell us what a notable creative artist or academic looks like.
The reason is because some specialists are notable in their fields but they wouldn't meet GNG. So there are provisions to include them despite not meeting GNG. I'm not speculating. This reason is stated in the guidelines you mention.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.
If the Twitter spats contributed to notability, she would have had a page long before she died.
This sounds like a suggestion for changing the notability guideline: if something happened more than three months ago, and it doesn't already have a Wikipedia article, then it isn't notable. It's a bit self-referential, what the guideline seeks to avoid, but you're welcome to suggest it.
it would be impossible *at this time* to write anything other than a hagiography.
Clearly not, when DanielRigel complains that it "gives prominence to her most negative beliefs." It can't be both a hagiography and a hit piece. -Pine457 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read DanielRigal as saying that the article is a hit piece, just that it is centred on her work, which was highly controversial - her description of trans women as "blackface actors", currently cited to blog The Mary Sue, is representative of the whole. The major sources are overwhelmingly obituaries written by her friends (such as Posie Parker) and allies. There is no published criticism of her work, whereas there *is* (because of the recently published obituaries) a great deal of loving, detailed praise and description of it. Currently the article cites a number of blog articles and tweets to get as far as "some people called her names"; nobody has seen fit to publish media takedowns of a non-notable Youtuber, much less in the wake of her death. Meanwhile, anti-trans writers have produced six to eight hagiographies in RS to cite. It is imperative that an article like this is neutral.
Notability is a guideline. It's there in service of the NPOV policy, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It states itself that "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ... We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." If a controversial subject does not have published criticism in reliable sources, I think that must call that subject's notability into question, as it makes it impossible to write a balanced article, which is the thing that WP:N is there to let us do. This, again, seems sufficient reason to me to allow Magdalen's legacy to settle *before* we write an article on her.
Thanks for your suggestion to take this to Notability talk, which I have done. Vashti (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read DanielRigal as saying that the article is a hit piece
"Hit piece" is my paraphrasing, regardless, he thinks it's negative enough that it ought to be deleted for that reason.
Currently the article cites a number of blog articles and tweets to get as far as "some people called her names"
Most biographies' criticism sections amount to "some people called them names." So we report that, and we report which names. That's what WP:NPOV asks for. It does not ask that the article must have a particular baseline of negativity, rather, it asks that we report what was said and we use an impartial tone in doing so.
Notability is a guideline. It's there in service of the NPOV policy, one of the pillars of Wikipedia.
Yes, and WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. That is what we have done. We are doing what the policy requires. It seems you are wishing that the policy required something else entirely.
it makes it impossible to write a balanced article
Let's be clear, your complaint isn't really that this is a hagiography, since you've acknowledged it includes criticism of her. Your complaint is that you think there ought to be even more criticism. But the policy doesn't require a specific amount, it requires that we report what exists. -Pine457 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be detailed criticism. "she's a TERF", too badly sourced for a BLP, isn't really criticism and isn't really balance. I don't think a body of work like Magdalen's should be allowed to go essentially uncriticised in Wikipedia's voice; I think it speaks incredibly poorly to her overall notability that there is no published criticism of such a virulent body of work, and I think notability is being used here to do an end run around the spirit of NPOV.
That said, my opinion is my opinion, and if others don't share it then that's that; can't win 'em all. Vashti (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be detailed criticism.
WP:NPOV disagrees, we need to include all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
"she's a TERF", too badly sourced for a BLP, isn't really criticism and isn't really balance.
You're really underselling the criticism present. I hope people go read the article instead of taking your summary.
I don't think a body of work like Magdalen's should be allowed to go essentially uncriticised in Wikipedia's voice;
Except for the actual criticism which you're pretending is just three words. Her views are not presented as though they were endorsed by Wikipedia. That would be a problem if they were not presented impartially, although it would be a content dispute to be resolved on the talk page, not a matter for AFD.
and I think notability is being used here to do an end run around the spirit of NPOV.
If the spirit of NPOV was intended to be that unverifiable criticism from unreliable sources should be included sometimes, the policy would surely say so. -Pine457 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of NPOV is that articles should present matters fairly, from all perspectives, giving each their due weight rather than excessive or insufficient weight. That's why we have notability guidelines. That's why it's such a problem that, frankly, only Magdalen's friends and allies in the media noticed when she died. Let's have a look at the criticism from the article:
Berns was described as a "one of the most hateful and aggressive anti-trans radical feminists on Twitter" by trans woman and self-described "opinionator" Phaylen Fairchild;[7] and a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist),[25] a transphobe,[23] and a "self-professed transphobe"[24] by her critics; transgender activist and philosophy professor Rachel McKinnon drew criticism after describing celebration of Berns' impending death as "ethically justified" in light of Berns' positions on gender.[27][28]
So we have: she's hateful and aggressive (sourced to a random Twitter account via, I think, Snopes; that would not pass BLP); she's a TERF (namecalling); she's a transphobe (namecalling, without backup); a prominent trans woman thinks it's reasonable to be happy about her death. You're a smart woman. Does that really all read as criticism of her positions (such as "being trans is like wearing blackface") to you? Of the sort that would make the article neutral and cover the range of opinions?
That said, my concerns about the article have been greatly reduced now that that ridiculous der Freitag user blog has been taken out. Vashti (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's sufficient. We do have an article titled feminist views on transgender topics that can be linked alongside the criticism to help readers navigate and come to their own conclusions.
And I think the spirit of WP:NPOV is that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Which is what we're doing.
That's why we have notability guidelines.
We have notability guidelines because Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Not so that we can include a certain baseline amount of negativity.
frankly, only Magdalen's friends and allies in the media noticed when she died.
Except there's that whole bit with Rachel McKinnon gloating about her death. -Pine457 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify my opinion related to the idea of it being a "hit piece". I don't think this has any great bearing on deletion. I just want to make my view clear seeing as there has been some confusion. I don't think that the article is an intentional "hit piece" and I never used that term. I think the problem is that it is something of a memorial, with elements of hagiography, but where the very things that the subject is being praised for are things that are widely regarded as not being praiseworthy outside of the small group that share her particular opinions. It would likely give many readers a very negative view despite that being directly contrary to what was intended. (If that isn't clear, let me give a hypothetical example of an analogous situation on a (perhaps only slightly) less controversial subject. Imagine if the Marmite fan club were to write a glowing article about one of its members who had passed away, praising them for their dedication to the Marmite cause and exaggerating their importance to it in order to assert notability. Any people who can't stand Marmite who saw that article would be inclined to think poorly of the subject despite the authors intentions being the exact opposite.) As such, this article runs the risk of serving as a sort of unintentional hit piece. This effect is unavoidable on some articles. For example, even written entirely neutrally, an article about a notorious criminal can not avoid giving a negative impression of its subject. The subject here was not a notorious anything, never mind a criminal. The notability is not sufficient to force us to do this and I agree with what Vashti says above. We don't need to do this. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I apologize for my poor paraphasing of your view. Thank you for clarifying.
outside of the small group that share her particular opinions
It is not a small group who believe that trans women are men. We on the left can sometimes give ourselves the impression that our views are more prominent than they are, but polling from outside the bubble tells a different story. A poll conducted by Populus Ltd last year in the UK found that "60% of people thought trans women should not be allowed to compete in women’s sport, and 59% thought a trans woman with a penis should not be free to use a women’s changing room."
The same poll asked respondents to consider "a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman." Only 19% said this person is a woman. 7% said they would not consider the person to be a man or a woman. 20% said they don't know. 52% said this person is a man.
Berns' views on these questions are the mainstream view.
We should not be deleting an article as an act of "kindness" toward the subject who might be viewed negatively by 19% of the population. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't determine who believes what, or what should be written in Wikipedia, based on polls with leading questions commissioned by anti-trans campaign groups like Fair Play For Women. Please stop trying to turn discussions into arguments about whether or not you are right. If you are indeed here to edit in good faith, you need to understand that you have to edit from *all* perspectives - not just your own. Vashti (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree polls don't determine what we cover. But Daniel claims it is a minority viewpoint, so I am allowed to respond with polling data that shows otherwise. If you are aware of better polling I'd be interested to see it. Please stop trying to tell me what I am allowed to discuss. I think you are well past BITE, and while I'm pretty thick skinned, I still don't appreciate it. If you think I'm saying something irrelevant, by all means say so, but do not presume to tell me what I am allowed to discuss. -Pine457 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To your claim that it's a leading question, the question was "We would now like you to think about a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman. In your own personal view would you consider this person to be a woman or a man?" I can't think of how such a question could be better worded. If it said "a man who was born male," that would be leading, but I don't see a better option than what they asked. (Quite irrelevant to AFD, but you made the claim.) -Pine457 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether an editor loves it or hates it: Feminist Current website, Spiked magazine, Der Freitag and The Post and Courier newspapers are not weighted in WP:RS/P and to dismiss them as not being reliable is entirely an editor POV. Der Freitag excerpt (translated from German): "Her videos brought me to a position that was previously unknown to me: gender-critical radical feminism...Magdalen Berns led debates for which there is still no clearly defined vocabulary in our language...The influence of youtube videos on very young and other people in search of orientation and information should not be underestimated. Magdalen Berns has done a tremendous amount of work in her short life to educate about her position, the gender-critical radical feminism. Her videos will continue to help, guide and, hopefully, reduce the confusion of people in gender-feminism and identity politics."
The Evening Standard newspaper and National Review magazine appear in WP:RS/P and are not deemed as "unreliable".
So as far as RS is concerned, we have AfterEllen, Der Freitag, Evening Standard, Feminist Current, Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, The Post and Courier.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Pyxis Solitary (yak) 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made no statement about source reliability other than regarding Quillette. Vashti (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said "That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, ....". And what I did is list 8 sources that are reliable, instead of just the 1 that, based on your statement, you consider reliable. Furthermore, the 8 sources are independent of each other and not identical. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the articles you listed are categorised at the top of the list as obituaries. That doesn't make them not reliable; it makes them sources that deal with a single event, *some of which* (such as the family obituary which is a primary source and the Facebook post) are not reliable. Vashti (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a real stretch — an obituary is an article about one person's life, who received that obituary because they were seen as notable enough to warrant a obituary. It is not an article about the event of their death. If it was that — ie an entry in the Darwin Awards, then I'd agree it would fall under WP:BIO1E. But this definitely doesn't. Her young death boosted her profile, as such deaths tend to do, and increased the number of secondary sources giving evidence of her notability, but the death itself is not what made her notable. KJBracey (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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 WP:NOTADVOCACY neither through publication nor deletion — we just need to look at notability. KJBracey (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was going to go for delete, as I am not wholly sure that being dead is notable. But a quick search throws up half a dozen articles about her death. Not sure they all meet RS, but its enough to make me think I might be missing some.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as shown by multiple reliable secondary sources; this seems pretty straightforward for keeping. Derek Balsam(talk) 15:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Derek Balsam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Gosh, sempai noticed me. This page is interesting reading also. Vashti (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_help_at_AFD? -Pine457 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC you suggested I go and ask at WP:N. It's right up there, look, along with my link to it. Vashti (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you take your idea for changing WP:N there. I said "This sounds like a suggestion for changing the notability guideline: if something happened more than three months ago, and it doesn't already have a Wikipedia article, then it isn't notable. It's a bit self-referential, what the guideline seeks to avoid, but you're welcome to suggest it."
I did not suggest that you should canvass about this AFD there. -Pine457 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that I wasn't aware of the canvassing policy and apologised for breaking it. Vashti (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not suggesting you should be reprimanded. -Pine457 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get it mate. Have you not seen all the sources? Spiked and Morning Star would have been enough on their own. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, on their own, Spiked and MS wouldn't pass WP:BIO1E. A lot of the sources turn out to only bear so much weight. We're left with partisan blogs (AfterEllen, Feminist Current), sources marked as no consensus/make sure material from this site meets due weight in the RS list (Morning Star, National Review), sources marked as generally unreliable (Quillette).... all sources on the same, highly partisan, side of the debate. The only detailed source we're left with which is not marked as "hey, be careful with this one" is Spiked, which is also very partisan.
We can still build a vague picture of notability based on the many minor mentions in the wider press, even without the partisan sources. It might be enough. But it's a much smaller picture than that flood of convincing-looking sources made it appear. IDK, when someone prominent dies in a small community, and web magazines and columnists sympathetic to that community all notice, and nobody else does, and the AfD is swung by arguments from brand-new accounts, my spider sense tingles. Vashti (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, on their own, Spiked and MS wouldn't pass WP:BIO1E.
I think KJBracey answered this well: "an obituary is an article about one person's life, who received that obituary because they were seen as notable enough to warrant a obituary. It is not an article about the event of their death. If it was that — ie an entry in the Darwin Awards, then I'd agree it would fall under WP:BIO1E."
The only detailed source we're left with which is not marked as "hey, be careful with this one" is Spiked, which is also very partisan.
Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, and we just need to be careful with the ones we're told to be careful with: don't source disputed claims from them.
and nobody else does,
Rachel McKinnon also noticed, which is why we have The Post and Courier and Inside Higher Ed as sources. -Pine457 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what others have said, there is no reason to discount any of the sources for being partial, they all meet the definition of reliable sources, for the purpose for which they are used. There is no dispute about the facts of Berns' life, which is what concerns us. It is also very much worth noting that the sources are ideologically very diverse. As far as I can see this is a dispute between two ideologically motivated posters given Vashti's declaration of position when he/she was canvassing support. But if we arrive at a position where a poster is pleading for disqualification of multiple sources from organisations we would normally trust as measures of notability, I'd say that pine457's position is clearly the one compatible with wiki policies. Vashti, you were also told that the article was probably noteworthy on your canvas attempt. Pine457 if you wish to prove your assertion that you were editing under an IP previously, you can probably provide the IP to an admin, certainly you should ask one about it. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SilverStar6583, who posted on this AfD before, also only has edits going back to the 15th September and has edited almost exclusively here and at Magdalen Berns. Vashti (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vashti: Good catch. I have added a SPA notice to the first Pine457 comment on this AfD and sent a warning to User talk:Pine457. If you want to follow this up, I would suggest doing so in the user talk page rather than here. --MarioGom (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I shall so do, but maybe tomorrow. Vashti (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Silverstar's account creation and first edits to the article predate this AFD. It's clear he or she arrived here because that article was sent to AFD, and editors on that article were invited to participate here. That's exactly how it's supposed to work, and WP:DGFA would not allow disregarding Silverstar's vote, as the account was not created solely for voting on the deletion discussion. -Pine457 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here for the same reason DanielRigal is: Berns' death was all over some parts of Twitter. I'm not sure whether I count as an SPA for the purpose of this AFD. The article was semi-protected at the time, which is why I had to create an account. I did create it after the AFD began, however, I have been participating in good faith, which should be evident from my attempting to reach compromise, which was accepted on the talk page. -Pine457 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. No policies prohibit editors from editing a single article. 146.90.81.143 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there is a legitimate question as to whether my vote should count. WP:DGFA mentions "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion," though mine wasn't (I created it to edit the semi-protected article), but I can't prove that. Anyway, we don't have to argue about it here. The closing administrator will take it into consideration. -Pine457 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sudden anon account! Actually you'll find single-issue editing is frowned on, when users are canvassed to e.g. affect an AfD as meatpuppets - and Pine457, you have certainly affected this AfD. DanielRigal has 31 thousand edits and has been a user since 2006. Vashti (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't canvassed. As DanielRigel said, Berns' death was all over some parts of Twitter. I didn't say he was a new editor. I said that's why he and I are here at this discussion. -Pine457 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say that we need to keep the article for now at least. There was a lot of notability when she was ill and died. Maybe in one or two years we can reevaluate and see if she is still considered notable enough. I guess it depends on how pioneering she was in what she said (blogged) as well as how influential her ideas were -- even if they were not pioneering. Sometimes someone restates something in such a way that it grabs the public, for example, Greta Thunberg didn't come up with new research or views on climate change, but it's how she presents them and how she makes an impact on people that make her notable. Perhaps something similar is happening here. The other thing that I'd be concerned about, is not following along with Wikipedia's tendency to generally take the politically correct and/or extreme liberal view on something. Just because there is some dissent doesn't mean that it's wrong to include something. It's tricky. Like I said, keep it for now and re-evaluate in a year or two (especially since the article is being udpated and improved regularly). Lehasa (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She should have an article if she's truly notable, whatever her opinions were. But that article should not be framed from her minority perspective. Vashti (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have effectively just argued for keep and improve. The fact (in this case assertion, but we'll assume it is true) an article is biased is absolutely not a reason for deletion, and is not a response to Lehasa's point. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was without question a notable feminist thinker, before she got sick. She helped clarify numerous gender critical positions and pushed back against FUD. Deleting this article would just be more silencing of women's voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkircher (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 October 2019 (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&oldid=1075513942"