Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Latin Woman


 * 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. (also withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Myth of the Latin Woman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD (article recreated after PROD deletion). No independent references. The PROD reasons still apply: not a published book - available as a pdf download. Fails WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn with a bouquet to Tokyogirl79 for a magnificent WP:HEY save. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under G11 and G12 - tagged as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G12 especially. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whoa there. Despite the original state of the article, I'm finding multiple sources that discuss this book and multiple, multiple sources that relist the story. It's not as easy as saying that it's just some random story and that its availability as a download negates any potential notability. I've added some sources to the article and am finding more. One or two of the sources are trivial, but so far I'm finding plenty to suggest that it would pass WP:NBOOK via the first and fourth criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I not only found several book sources (all of which appear to be academic texts, I will note), I found several instances where the story was re-published in various academic textbooks in general, as well as various links that show that the story is used in many classrooms. Removing this from Wikipedia would be a great disservice, I think, especially since sourcing does appear to exist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on sources added by TG. A single cursory search of Google Books shows a ton of sources. I don't understand how 3 people Speedily jumped to Delete without apparent research. This is a widely anthologized story used for teaching easily passing NBOOK #4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok now understand the rush to delete after seeing other activity around article creator. Still, this one notable enough to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on sources that have now been found; apologies for not looking myself! (I've struck my earlier vote). Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lukeno94 above. This is a good example of how a delete tag can save an article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 3 December 2012 (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.