Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La muñeca menor


 * 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. In terms of considering accepted reasons for deletion, there was a staunch consensus for Keep on the basis of suitable sourcing (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

La muñeca menor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for 4 problems, the earliest of which was noted 6+ years ago. Seemingly, none have been addressed. In fact, there have been no edits in more than 3 years. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this article isn't good and isn't getting any better, but that's a drawback inherent in the project as a whole, not a cause for deletion. Instead. there are quite a few scholarly publications focused exclusively on this work. When a journal article begins by acknowledging that "there have been numerous studies" of a work, it's a strong implication that the work is notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, per the many sources with significant coverage found by the Google Scholar search linked by the nomination process. The issues tagged for are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it, and the length of time since the last edit is absolutely irrelevant to either. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've asked for help with some of the applicable WikiProjects to find people fluent in Spanish that could help expand and improve this article. In any case, there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage that specifically focuses on this specific short story. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of citations in academic journals on this story (I added one). Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.