Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Berke

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 delete. Sandstein 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berke

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only relevant Google result is this very article, suggesting a lack of reliable sources (or sources, period) about Berke other than the mere five already cited in the article. Also worth noting that not only is there a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the late subject himself, but according to this comment he made, he apparently "want[ed] [his] story to mean something after [he was] gone" and "hope[d] [his] little notoriety as a transgendered person [would] help [him] to be heard on [his] way out from this world" - not a very good reason to create an article on yourself, wouldn't you agree? Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This all is at best local human interest level coverage. Nothing here justifies having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole vote is basically a WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was detailed in an Associated Press article, had two pieces of coverage that, while local, were still outside of subject's relevant geographic area of Colorado and Florida, and appeared on an MSNBC documentary. ミラ P 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs more widespread news coverage. Plus, every single one of us will be forgotten, sooner or later. Pancho507 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level human interest story. There have been many instances of changing gender and then reversing it, I'm sure this qualifies as anything out of the ordinary. With the article created by the subject and the comment left on the Jbhunley's talk page it sounds like he was desperate to be remembered, best to use other websites for that kind of thing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD's like this are always tough as I understand the want to establish the legacy of those who have passed, but Wikipedia not a memorial and the coverage of Berke is not at the level necessary to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (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.