Deletion of Barbie's careers

Comment: This article is in dire need of expansion, but that is not a reason to delete because of . Found lots of sources: Time (magazine) https://time.com/3977192/barbie-careers/, Vogue (magazine) https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/barbies-careers-and-jobs, Insider Inc. https://www.insider.com/barbies-coolest-jobs-2019-3, PopSugar https://www.popsugar.com/career/List-Barbie-Careers-20170793?stream_view=1#photo-20171379, Working Mother https://www.workingmother.com/60-best-career-barbies-over-her-60-years and more. Easily passes  since it's "list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Not to mention even many more sources that mention how impactful Barbie's careers are https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/how-barbie-affects-career-ambitions/284411/ https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/barbie-turns-60-teen-model-diverse-getter-shes-61147280 https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/03/09/barbie-turns-60-with-career-dolls-and-role-models.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:LISTN)

Comment: I'm not seeing a -REASON|reason to delete in the nomination.  The page is obviously a |spinoff from the main article about the topic, like an appendix.  As that main article is 67K, that seems fine.  There seems to be plenty of academic interest in the topic.  For example, ''https://isedj.org/2012-10/N6/ISEDJv10n6p4.html this paper'' identifies computer engineer as the 126th career and this demonstrates the scale of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:SPINOFF)