Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman Cottle


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sherman Cottle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article consists entirely of a plot summary for the character, with no secondary sources. I was also not able to locate any sources to show notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if it's enough to establish notability, but the character is more commonly referred to as "Doc Cottle" in various sources, including a couple of dead-tree works about BSG. Reasonable search term, merge or redirect is certainly more appropriate than deletion if notability cannot be established: no one contests this is a real character on notable TV show. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens I was able to rework the article a bit relying on a few of those dead tree sources. See below, what do you think? &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This show was a zeitgeist moment in some cultures, so it's no surprise that many of the characters have coverage with relations to the real world. While the character isn't quite Bones McCoy there's still a ton to dig through, covering themes ranging from characterization during the mid 2000s, to abortion rights, to sickness and prayer and medical ethics, to the role of a doctor. Here's a start:  &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo Sources review: passing mention/plot summary, no preview, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary and passing mention/plot summary again. Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in what you listed, I am afraid. The character might warrant mention in some articles about medicine in fiction/abortion in fiction/etc., and of course in the general list of BG charactesr, but lack of SIGCOV and the WP:ALLPLOT content of the article prevents me from supporting your keep, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. I couldn't see all of the sources mentioned by Siroxo, but what I did see were passing mentions of plot points, not discussion or analysis of the character. I didn't find anything better. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Changing to weak keep following the "Doctors in space (ships)" source identification - that's one good source, with the others still marginal IMO. Another undeniably good source would make me a "keep" voter. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @BennyOnTheLoose The analysis is both in terms of characterization as well as in tying the character's actions (i.e. plot points) to aspects of the real world (i.e. analyzing the art through the medium of the character). Examples from references I linked:
 * showing how men are frequently put in charge of reproductive science, also including comparing the character performing pregnancy terminations to women smuggled onto the ship to real world right to choose,
 * pointing out more ties to the early 2000s zeitgiest including that the character is shown as a "crusty leftover" by having him smoke cigarettes
 * the character's sense of medical ethics is described in contrast both to a religious zealot and an immoral doctor, and describing how the characters are also portrayed differently (for example, this character smokes cigarettes rather than occasional cigars of the zealot, etc)
 * the character recommends prayer to a sick character, this action is tied to the real world explaining prayer as a comfort and a remaining option
 * He's compared to a mechanic in that he can "fix humans" as part of an analysis of the show comparing humans as machines
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you see this in the sources - which I did not - do try to add a reception/analysis section and ping me and I'll re-review and reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting so that changes to article since nomination can be reviewed and assessed in the context of this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters per my comment above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your ping. I've taken you up on your suggestion and taken in-depth shot at this (diff). I've attributed everything to avoid SYNTH, and tried to only mention pieces of the authors conclusions that rely (in full or in part) directly on mentions of Cottle. I've represented several authors examinations to avoid UNDUE (though one author did have two essays that were both good to pull from). My prose is admittedly my weakness, but I'm pretty happy with the underlying essence. If this doesn't work for a keep, I'd appreciate help in finding a suitable way to merge the majority of this, as I think it does represent a reasonable tertiary examination of the character. Note also that I tend to avoid doing much with character articles, so feel free to point out or clean up any MOS-type things I may have missed. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding a proper ping for @Piotrus in case reply didn't work. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo It didn't, but the ping did. The analysis is... ok. I don't have time to check again for SIGCOV in sources, but it reads ok - much better than some 'ranked n-th in the list of Top 10 whatevers' that we get here routinely. I'd nuke much of the content in 'Further description' as a lot if is trivia, and I am surprised this doesn't have a proper 'fictional character biography' (which could be extracted from that mess of a subsection... it was a mess before too ). For now I am changing my vote to weak keep based on your work. If anyone wants to challenge this, do ping me again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Piotrus. The coverage is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep character reception noted makes this sufficient for a standalone article, and inappropriate (though less inappropriate than outright deletion) for merge or redirect, as it has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I just found ~470 more words of SIGCOV on ProQuest, in Henderson L, Carter S. Doctors in space (ships): biomedical uncertainties and medical authority in imagined futures. Medical Humanities 2016 12;42(4):277.. I am going to add it in the article now. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added in that new source. I also want to let anyone else arriving at this discussion know that I've rewritten virtually the entire article. It now relies purely on secondary sources, with zero citations to the show itself. We now reference academic books of essays (one totaling a couple hundred of words of SIGCOV across authors), and we have multiple academic papers with hundreds of words of SIGCOV as well. I can confidently say WP:GNG is met. &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. The improved article is not just an in-universe description of a fictional character; it is focused on reception and criticism of the character which can be traced to multiple reliable sources, and demonstrates that a high-quality verifiable encyclopedia article that isn't just fancruft can be written here. Since the significance of these sources was called into question by others, I spent some time assessing the sources linked in this discussion. Notability is definitely borderline but I'm satisfied that there's enough here to meet GNG. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 19:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 19:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC))


 * Keep per DyInuge's above analysis and Siroxo's work. Seems to me that we indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2023 (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.