Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan chronologies


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Conan chronologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tried to address this article over many years and it cannot be fixed. This just isn't a WP:N notable subject because there are no reliable third party sources that establish this as an independent topic. The article is sourced to the author and his estate, and other self published sources from fans. It's at best original research cited to the primary sources, a synthesis of fan-generated theories about the order of episodic content. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST: I see two reliable sources writing about the topic of "Conan chronologies" as a topic of academic interest. The first one is a book chapter that's currently cited in the article:
 * "Conan the Barbarian: Transmedia Adventures of a Pulp Hero" in Transmedia Archaeology: Storytelling in the Borderlines of Science Fiction by Carlos A. Scolari, Paolo Bertetti and Matthew Freeman, Palgrave McMillan (2014)
 * This appears to be an independent academic work of literary criticism. I see another one here, which I'll add to the article:
 * Robert E. Howard: A Collector's Descriptive Bibliography of American and British Hardcover, Paperback, Magazine, Special and Amateur Editions, with a Biography by Leon Nielsen, McFarland & Co (2015)
 * This is also an independent work of literary criticism by a reliable publisher, and there is a specific discussion of Conan chronology on pages 88-90, including: "The issue of the Conan chronology has been the cause of a great deal of deliberation, controversy and dispute since 1973 when Kevin Miller was the first to question the validity of the Miller-Clark Conan chronology."
 * As decades pass, there is a moment for every popular fictional work where "deliberation, controversy and dispute" stops being considered "fan discussion" and starts being considered "literary criticism". This has already happened for Sherlock Holmes and H.P. Lovecraft, and it looks to me like Conan may have crossed that line around 2014-2015. :) I haven't looked deeply for more examples, but I think that these two are enough to indicate that Conan criticism has arrived. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the articles you're citing. They barely mention the chronologies. One doesn't even mention them at all. I might have missed it, but the subject of those is critical analysis of Conan as a character and a series more broadly. There's some verifiable material to write into a main Conan topic that fans spend time evaluating the sequence of things. It doesn't mean that you then add detailed lists from 7 different fan theories, only cited to primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that some of the early fan theories have been published by independent publishers, and are themselves a secondary source. The primary source is a Conan story. I agree that the article should be edited, with extraneous material cut down. Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article content does not diminish the topic's notability. People can clean up the article outside of an AfD discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding harsh, if you cut the "extraneous material" -- the primary sourced material -- there wouldn't be an article left. Which is why I proposed AFD. But I'm also looking to build a consensus with editors who do see the issues. Where would you start, if you were to start removing the most obvious "extraneous" parts? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would start by making edits to the article and discussing changes on the talk page, in collaboration with other editors who are knowledgeable in the topic area. You don't need a deletion discussion to talk about cleanup. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I proposed the AFD because I suspect that once you remove all the primary sourced material you wouldn't have anything left. But I'm asking you -- if the article can be improved, I could genuinely use a little good faith feedback. If you see this RFC at the original research noticeboard, people were telling me to not even bother improving it, years ago. I've come around to their position, because I'm not seeing the improvement, including when I review the sources you pulled up. But in the interest of consensus-building, I remain very much open to seeing even potential improvement, even as small as a comment about what "extraneous material" means to you. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Toughpigs's work. Caro7200 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. --  Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. It's tiresome that this matter keeps coming up, despite having been retired more than once in the past. BPK (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, several editors have said on the talk page that this article is mostly a WP:COATRACK for primary sources, even if you include these alleged third party sources that don't actually engage with the topic once you read them. Most patient editors will try to discuss and give it time, but don't mistaken patience for "retiring" the issue. We've avoided AFD until now, but it's gotten to the point where people need to do more than say that sources hypothetically exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also respectfully, you've made these same arguments for years, as archived on the article's talk page. It seems to me they were adequately answered there, and I refer interested parties to that talk page. I see no reason to rehash the whole thing here, though, certainly, new evidence can be brought in (and has, I see). A consensus is being sought on whether to keep or delete the page under discussion. All prior comment I've seen reinforces my opinion it should be kept, and I have expressed that opinion, as you have expressed yours. Absent new considerations one way or another, rejoinders appear pointless. At this point I think we should just let other voices be heard. BPK (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The talk page doesn't have an answer. It's a series of "no consensus" discussions. If anything, there was a consensus discussion at the original research noticeboard to remove the original research. But you reverted the removal of primary sourced material after the RFC was closed, and it was out of sincere respect that we re-open the discussion on the talk page. In the short run, you can see those circular discussions as a consensus to quietly improve the article, and I'm happy to hear from people who want to give it more time. But in the long run, eventually, the massive gap between the article and Wikipedia policy speaks for itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are, of course, not in agreement. I'll leave it at that. As noted, it's time fresh voices were heard. BPK (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable article dealing with one of the best-known and most written about characters in fantasy fiction. No reason whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toughpigs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to Conan (books). This is really an odd article. I can't think of any other fiction that has a separate chronology article, and this article really stretches a few third-party sources into a really diluted primary sourced article. But AFD is not cleanup. And we know that any author with a sufficiently large bibliography can have a separate spinout article, if you look at the guideline on Notability (people). If this were called Bibliography of Conan the Barbarian I doubt anyone would raise an issue. And that bibliography could add a short summary of the chronologies, which could turn the bibliography into a pretty useful table, sortable by year of publication or chronology (the properly sourced ones). Jontesta (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2020 (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.