Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Librarians in popular culture (4th nomination)


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Librarians in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a trivia list with some original research thrown on top for good measure. It's survived AfD a couple times before, yes, but the last close was a "no consensus", and the three years without improvement since the last one really speak for themselves that this is not an article that will be turned into something worthwhile. What little encyclopedic content there is in the lead has already been duplicated on the main Librarians page. --erachima talk 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely unsourced trivia and OR. It's nothing but unsourced fluff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Keep per cleaned-up revision, detritus is now gone. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've removed the accreted trivia. A little original research remains but the bulk of the article is sourced from reliable third-party sources - see the reference section. --Zeborah (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've now removed the original research as well. There may be a few more things that could be done to tidy it up, but this (and the list I created last AfD of additional references) should make it clear that the topic passes notability with flying colours. --Zeborah (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, when the phrase |"Librarians in popular culture" returns 26 Google Scholar hits, it does not bode well for deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a very strong argument. I replaced Librarians for Plumbers and I get plenty of results. Are you suggesting, there should an article for Plumbers in popular culture also? Likeminas (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with "Loan officers in popular culture" and got no results at all, even in the general Google search. My position is that if a topic has been treated by secondary sources, it deserves either an article or a merge to another article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The lists which have now been moved to the talkpage are dreadful as far as scarcely-relevant cramming is concerned, but the sources in the article (and I believe it should be an article, not a list) coupled with those coming up on google scholar and books speak to this being a perfectly relevant subject which is notable. It may be that the article needs to cover both perceptions of librarians (a history which is well covered in a number of sources) as well as how they're portrayed in fiction, it may also be that ultimately this belongs as part of the librarian article. In the meantime, this is fine IMO. Someoneanother 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zeborah and Someone another. Legitimate sources, a coherent subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Librarians; there's no need for a separate entry when a section would suffice. Likeminas (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a good example of a segmented article title, in which two topics (librarians and popular culture) have brought together to form an entirely novel and original topic that has not been published anywhere except Wikipedia. There is no sourced definition for this topic, and there are no sources that provide coverage of the the topic directly or in detail that could be used to support the title. This article could just as easily be called "Librarians in the media", "Librarians in fiction", and the title does not disguise that its subject matter is, as the nominator states, a "trivia list" loosely related to the articles Librarian and Libraries. This is a good example of a topic that has failed WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:MADEUP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What? This is far from an original topic.  The article contains no original research.  Everything in the article is sourced from scholarly articles that specifically and explicitly discuss librarians in popular culture.  (Granted some of these articles focus on subtopics like librarians in film, librarians in young adult novels, etc, and some have focused on librarians in specific popular works, but I don't think you'd suggest Wikipedia articles on each of these subtopics.)  In the Google Scholar search Abductive links to, the title of the first result is "Recasting the debate: the sign of the library in popular culture"; the introduction of the second says "Personality tests, studies, and surveys go to great lengths to examine or repudiate the image of librarians in popular culture"; the abstract of the third begins "This review of the literature discusses the image of librarians  in popular culture".  And so on and so forth.  Even more articles on the topic are listed on the article talk page, dating back to 1975:  this subject is incredibly well-covered in the scholarly literature.  In short... just, seriously, what? --Zeborah (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. User:Gavin.collins's comments are doubly counterfactual in that the articles already contains multiple sources which address the topic directly and his view of policy is a personal one which is not supported by consensus.  His attempts to push his idiosyncratic views have been shut down recently by adminstrators at WP:ANI and he should please not misrepresent their status here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Until such time as the topic itself is remains unsourced, it will be nominated for deletion. Whether it is an original topic or not is a matter of opinion. So far there are no sources to suggest that that the topic itself is notable. However, I doubt there is an administrator of sufficient guts and intelligence to acknowledge this fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability requires that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (and further defines these terms); this article very much fulfills these requirements. What specifically does it lack that would make it notable in your opinion? --Zeborah (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject matter that the sources cited in the article address directly and in detail is that of librarians, pure and simple. I think there is a misunderstanding here about the difference between an essay and an Encyclopedia article: In the same way Wikipedia does not allow essays about "Librarians in books" or "Librarians in libraries", it should not have an article about or "Librarians in non-fiction" or "Librarians in popular culture". Whether the source of an article is popular culture or non-fiction, or is about studies of these sources, all of the coverage is about librarians per se. "Librarians in popular culture" is simply one type of source from which information about librarians is gathered, it is not a topic in its own right. Popular culture is drawn from many media, such as literature, film and television, but librarians are not one of those sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, none of the sources cited are about librarians per se - they're not about real librarians at all, but rather are specifically about how (fictional) librarians are depicted in popular culture. (WP:NOT forbids "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic"; it explicitly doesn't forbid "the consensus of experts" which is what this article consists of.) -If you disagree with this, what would a source look like that you would consider to be about "librarians in popular culture" per se? --Zeborah (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you are correct and sources in this article are not about librarians per se, but instead address the topics of "Fictional librarians" or "Librarian stereotypes", this is still a world away from "Libarians in popular culture". Fictional characters and sterotypes are both cultural phenomena, but Wikipedia does not have articles on "Fictional characters in popular culture" nor "Stereotypes in popular culture"; rather, this article is based upon a mis-categorisation of the sources. By contrast, "Fictional librarians" or "Librarian stereotypes" may well be notable topics (e.g some of the sources in this article address these topics), but putting them toghether in an essay conflicts with WP:NOT. Putting fictional characters and stereoptypes together because it is possible to infer that they are related by category based on passing mentions of "popular culture" is the wrong approach contravenes WP:GNG inclusion criteria based on "significant coverage" that must be direct, not infered. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would a source look like that you would consider to be about "librarians in popular culture"? --Zeborah (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic has great notability and would be easy to improve further using scholarly sources such as Librarians and party girls: cultural studies and the meaning of the librarian which address the topic directly. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surprisingly this seems to be a sufficiently notable topic in its own right. The current article looks OK. I haven't checked it in detail. Any problems that might cause a massive further loss of content (I am talking about actual content, not the silly trivia lists that have been removed already) should trigger a (temporary) merge, not a deletion. Hans Adler 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure what it looked like when it was nominated, but this one is of the few cases where an "in popular culture" article actually sources to studies of the depiction of something in popular culture, the reason being that there is a popular culture stereotype for a librarian that doesn't match up with all librarians (although it does seem to match up with quite a few in that profession). Geez, the very word conjures up images of old ladies who say "SHHHHH!!!"  Mandsford 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see not OR or anthing other than referenced work. Web Warlock (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the few properly done "in popular culture" articles we have. It isn't an indiscriminate trivia-list and it approaches the subject from a scholarly perspective.  Them From  Space  11:33, 28 July 2010 (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.