Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Doering

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. Tone 19:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Doering[edit]

[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)

This biography doesn't meet WP:BLP1E criteria. All information outside of the viral human-interest story about being reunited with her sister is from non-reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this imperfect? I don't understand. I did research and translation stuff on the internet for just this one story for 2 hours straight. It's like a math teacher saying you did all of you multiplication wrong, even though you gotten the answers right. This article has a neutral point of view about her early life all the way to her "private" career. Do you agree with me or not?

Junkrak

The issue isn't that you did a bad job, it's that reliable sources have not written enough about this topic. You could spend a decade working on this article nonstop and it wouldn't change a thing unless more reliable sources publish content about Audrey Doering. I would suggest that you read through WP:BLP1E. If you can justify that this subject doesn't meet all three criteria listed there, and that it does meet WP:GNG, then I will happily change my vote to keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reliable source from Cambridge University about their birth names and life from Nancy Segal. How about that?

Junkrak —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link please. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/rearedapart-chinese-twins-chance-discoverytwinbased-research-twin-study-of-media-use-twin-relations-over-the-life-span-breastfeeding-oppositesex-twinsprint-and-online-media-twins-in-fashion-second-twin-pair-born-to-tennis-star-twin-primes-twin-pandas/2B6F5A486AC2EA5A0CC3F0ABA34E18C6/core-reader

User:Junkrak —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's two problems with this source. One is that it is still fundamentally about the "twins separated at birth" thing, which means that it doesn't do much to break out of the WP:BLP1E criteria. Two is that it is not independent, as in this article the author states that she was the one who facilitated the reunion of the two sisters. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://myusagym.com/meets/past/58902/results/12906/ http://www.mymeetscores.com/gymnast.pl?gymnastid=21387727 Ros, can you write about this in the Career section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkrak (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the issues raised in the nomination statement still haven't been addressed. The article will be deleted if you can't find more coverage in secondary, reliable sources, and the extent to which the sources provided are already scraping the bottom of the barrel suggests that we are unlikely to find any such coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got me, I can't find shit! Scraping at the bottom of the FUCKING BARREL isn't enough huh? Stop being PC and tell me the fuck is wrong with it. I founded video footage that's from ABC, which filmed the document from the newspaper, Doering personal information from social media, 1 news report about the heart surgery, and this SHIT ISN'T ENOUGH? FINE, delete my hard work (bitch or bastard), your seriously pissing me off. I know the rules or regulation shit says not to take it personal, BUT HUMANS AREN'T AUTOMATED STEPHEN HAWKING MACHINES THAT KNOW EVERYTHING! User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 21:19pm (UTC) THIS ARTICLE BULLSHIT, DUH, DELETE PROFILE, DUH, NO RELIABLE SOURCES, DUH, DELETE HORSESHIT

Keep: Reliable sources have been discovered through the internet. Cased closed. User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 22:04 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Let me explain, Most of the sources come from The Doerings social media accounts, twin documents from ABC video footage, and private life being exposed through the career websites (YMCA or Violin place). Put them all together, including the study from Cambridge University and the DNA tests from ABC, and you get a damn good article with secondary sources with multiple links. User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 23:26 (UTC) second keep vote by same user struck.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is literally WP:BLP1E. It's a heartwarming story that belongs on GMA and not here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about as clear-cut a case of WP:BLP1E as there can be. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 29 December 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.