Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Zaius

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. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zaius

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed for NPP. Unredirected with little evidence for notability; the person who unredirected it redid it when this was initially reverted. Little non-in-universe content. Should be re-redirected to List of Planet of the Apes characters#Dr Zaius.

Of the three sources here, CBR is marginally reliable but not usable for notability. Den of Geek is a passing mention. Vulture is about the Simpsons episode. I did a source check and I couldn't find anything discussing him as a character outside of the larger movie plot. However it is a very famous movie so it's possible there's something I didn't find. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is apparently a published scholarly paper with an extensive discussion of Zaius, which in combination with Vulture, makes 2 RS'es, clearing the bar for GNG. Now, having said that, I believe there are more out there, and this could be an interesting standalone article. Having said that, re-redirection is not the end of the world and while I don't think it's a great option here, it's certainly better than deleting this article which seems a good start at what a standalone article should look like. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked that article yet, so I'm not going to evaluate its contents at this second, but I don't think the Vulture article helps the character's notability. It has nothing about the character, it is about the Simpsons episode that has a pop culture reference to the Planet of the Apes. It would probably help A Fish Called Selma (where it is in EL). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly incorrect. If a notable fictional franchise has made fun of a particular other fictional element, that absolutely contributes to the notability of the other fictional element. If all we had commenting on Star Wars was Robot Chicken: Star Wars that would still be a really good indicator of notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedia is not a receptacle of pop culture references. In any case, that would apply to the parent series, not the character. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Whilst the Science for Seminaries may count towards GNG, Vulture certainly doesn't. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are multiple academic publications that establish the character's notability (listed chronologically by year of publication with partial elaborations of the coverage included below each entry; these are nonexhaustive, and multiple of the sources include more material than can be concisely summarized here):
- Eric Greene, Planet of the Apes as American Myth: Race and Politics in the Films and Television Series (McFarland & Company, 1996)
  - Analyzes Zaius as an antagonist and critic of humanity and his character's references to American political contexts at the time of the film's release (50–51, 57). Also contrasts the character with other antagonists in the series, like Aldo (120).
- Sherryl Vint, "Simians, Subjectivity and Sociality: 2001: a Space Odyssey and Two Versions of Planet of the Apes", Science Fiction Film and Television 2, no. 2 (October 2009)
  - Coverage of two different versions of the Zaius character (in the 1968 and 2001 films) and examining the character as an antagonist who opposes yet resembles the protagonist (unpaginated version accessed)
- John Huss, ed., Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike, Popular Culture & Philosophy Series (Open Court Publishing Company, 2013)
  - Travis Michael Timmerman's chapter "Who Comes First, Humans or Apes?" assesses Zaius as an antagonist and as a depiction of speciesism in the franchise (69–71).
  - Bernard E. Rollin and Huss's chapter "Science's Crazy Dogma" also examines the Zaius character as a fictional exploration of conflating religion with science and of ideological commitment overshadowing rational observation (42–52)
  - Greg Littmann's chapter "Banana Republic" writes about Zaius's role in the story as an antagonist and in the setting as a character who fits the archetype of Plato's ideal ruler (131–134).
  - A book review in the journal Extrapolation states that "Planet of the Apes and Philosophy accomplishes its goals with energy and wit" (vol. 56, no. 1 [Spring 2015])
- Adam Jardine, "The Pedagogic Value of Science Fiction: Teaching about Personhood and Nonhuman Rights with Planet of the Apes", The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review 20 (2018): 1–41, https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=undalr
  - Covers the Zaius character as a main antagonist and connects his behavior to themes of personhood in philosophy and law (10–19).
- Julie L. Gittinger, Personhood in Science Fiction: Religious and Philosophical Considerations (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30062-3
  - Analysis of Zaius as a representation of church–science conflicts and of religious justifications for racism (186–187) and as a metaphor for midcentury American Christian conservatism (185)
- Nicholas Benson, "Apes on TV: Medium Specificity and Considerations of Continuity in Early Transmedia Storytelling", Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 14, no. 1 (March 2019): 22–39, https://doi.org/10.1177/1749602018809790
  - Coverage of how the depiction of the character changed in different works in the franchise (28, 36–37)

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Good job on finding that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydrangeans' sources, Greene and Benson sound especially good. Toughpigs (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the Benson source is one of the thinner ones and doesn't have much more than key differences between the 1968 film version of the character and the television series version. But Greene's book is quite good and has a lot of depth and detail. The chapters in the Huss book also have solid amount, and I think the detail and analysis Vint provides is interesting and considerable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hydrangeans' source list is a useful one, I've been using Greene as source on the Beneath movie article and attest that source's value. I also want to draw attention to sources on the cultural impact of the character. This is a different vulture article profiling comedian Dana Gould on his history of portraying a parody version of Dr. Zaius he calls Dr. Z. The New York times did an article on a Punk band from Alaska called Doctor Zaius named after the character, the band is also mentioned in Greene p.169. And while looking up more information on that band I found aditional bands named after the character including a Chilean Metal band, a Washington D.C. Ska band, and a progressive electronic rock band named Dr. Zaius and the Human Exp. Docarc (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. An iconic character, I knew he was notable even before I saw the numerous demonstrated sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, many things that people assume are notable turn out not to be. In this case perhaps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a WP:BEFORE. I can see how the sources might be thin and at the borderline. If the article hasn't expanded into something that meets our guidelines, we can always discuss a merge later. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2024 (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.