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. There is a clear consensus to keep the content in some form. There are strong arguments about merging the content, but no consensus on a merge or the proper merge target. The main Conan article is possible target for a merge, though ReaderofthePack's suggestion about a "Conan in popular culture article" sounds promising. I recommend that a discussion about a possible merge continue in the appropriate place. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conan the Librarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Currently sourced to one unreliable source (CBR) that itself uses Wikipedia as a source. This is otherwise a an original synthesis about people who have made the same pun, and violates WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is mentioned on two pages of this book, but I can only get a snippet view on google Books, so I can't check whether there is an in-depth analysis or just a rehash of our article's appearances (but this review of said book does mention the fact that it discussed CtL so it's an indication the book coverage is more than in passing; also another review does the same). But this source discusses the character for several paragraphs, although it is indeed light on analysis, and outside making the claim that " Conan the “Librarian” would become one of the most frequently created and re-created versions of our favorite barbarian" we are treated to a descriptive list of appearances (again, I can't but wonder if said list isn't based on our Wikipedia article...). This (minor) academic article mentions "was quite surprised to find an entire subculture devoted to this particular individual [CtL] online. There are blogs, graphic art, stories, movie excerpts, even software applications" and again has several (well, two) paragraphs about this character. This academic article discusses "a sketch called "Conan the Librarian" from the movie UhF" for about one page. And there is a dozen or so sources that mention him in passing as an example of a librarian stereotype or joke or such. Overall, I think this character is more notable than the average Marvel comic character we tend to discuss here where there is zero academic discussion and only a few general clickbait listicles, and GNG is met due to 2+ in depth coverage (although yes, the level of analysis is pretty bare bones). Considering the nominator didn't mention BEFORE, a WP:TROUT is warranted here for skipping said step (this should've been at most a merge proposal). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page has existed since 2004 and for many of those years, it has contained misinformation about Monty Python which has now propagated elsewhere. Now that this has been corrected, we must retain the article to set the record straight, by Crom! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and we do not have a grandfather clause, so we do not keep articles just because they somehow managed to survive from the wild west days of 2004 to the present. This is a collection of trivia and mentions of one episode apparances and the like. There is no sourcing that shows that this is actually a notable topic. If we absolutely must keep it we should make it a redirect to an adaptations section on Conan the Librarian and pare it back to a reasonable size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a multi-sourced, multi-media notable article that is also well-integrated to the encyclopedia. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like the ideas of keeping and merging, however my only quibble with merging is that there's not really a suitable landing page. There's no page on Conan in pop culture and this doesn't entirely fit, since it's gone beyond a pop culture parody of Conan. There is an article on librarians in pop culture, but this doesn't fit neatly there either as a solution. To really cover it and the other content properly on any given page there would need to be more of a substantial section on this specific parody, particularly that it's become a common librarian stereotype. I do think that there's more coverage out there, particularly in relation to stereotyping, but I don't have access to any of it other than seeing the references that there is more out there. On a side note, there is definite merit in creating an article on Conan the Barbarian in pop culture, as it seems like this doesn't exist other than the section Conan_the_Barbarian#Media, which would presumably only cover official releases. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Conan the Barbarian, per ReaderofthePack. It would be possible to build out a parody subsection under "Media", with Cerebus the Aardvark and Cohen the Barbarian. Despite being a parody of a popular series, there isn't significant coverage of the overall parody in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Shooterwalker, Did you read my keep rationale above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw it, including your suggestion for a merge proposal, which was echoed by other editors. My view is that this article is indeed held together by original synthesis, and that the sources don't significantly cover the whole topic. Given that I didn't think there would be a solid consensus to keep or delete this, I thought a merger might produce a consensus between the more polarizing views. And it's encouraging to see some editors willing to compromise. Would you consent to a merge? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Conan the Barbarian per Shooterwalker's well reasoned explanation above. That is clearly where this can best be covered, and there is clearly not enough reliable, secondary source coverage to justify having a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 11 February 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.