Deletion of Conan the Librarian

Comment: He is mentioned on two pages of https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=78LgAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Conan+the+Librarian%22+-wikipedia&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Conan+the+Librarian%22 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 https://journals.tdl.org/llm/index.php/llm/article/viewFile/7116/6316 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 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/510868/summary another review does the same). But https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=BbBl25f6s4gC&pg=PA27&dq=%22Conan+the+Librarian%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN84mB0NbuAhVHQd4KHSMpB7IQ6AEwA3oECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Conan%20the%20Librarian%22%20-wikipedia&f=false 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...). http://journals3.oregondigital.org/olaq/article/download/vol11_iss1_11/1743 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. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/603283 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  is warranted here for skipping said step (this should've been at most a merge proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)