Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Zapata

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not an academic, nor a notable physian. scope_creepTalk 22:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Beccaynr. Please expand the article accordingly. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this venue is WP:NOTCLEANUP. As the nominator, you have the same (or perhaps greater) obligation to improve the article. pburka (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to expand this article, and currently working on it - I usually tend to wait for at least one other participant !voting keep in an AfD discussion before I attempt WP:HEY, but with scope_creep's encouragement, I am going for it. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pburka. The onus is not on an AfD voter to add those sources to the article. Many if not all of those sources could have been identified in a WP:BEFORE by the nominator. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with pburka, but had interpreted the request as specifically directed at me, and maybe informed by my general history at AfD, and/or maybe what I have posted in the Selected Work section of my userpage, or my self-identification as one of the editors known for behaving like dogs spotting squirrels. I also sometimes accept requests to help expand articles at my Talk page, and with the above feedback in mind, that seems like a better forum for future requests. I do review AfD to find articles to improve, and I apologize for how my enthusiasm for a wide-open field of squirrel contravened the general process. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.