Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Nadesico

This really isn't controversial, so I decided to close it. This discussion has never had a two-thirds consensus for deletion, so all we've accomplished is moving the bar between "keep" and "no consensus/default keep". At this point, the 6 votes are split 50/50 (including Poetlister's formal vote, which was a bit late but arguably just a clarification of her nomination), and the rest of the community has shown no interest in chiming in even after 17 days and 2 extensions. Questions of copyvio (Poetlister, UDScott, Cato, InvisibleSun) have been fixed. The issue of identifying the subject (Poetlister, UDScott, Aphaia, LrdChaos, Jeff Q) have been clarified (if somewhat arbitrarily). Cleanup and structure (UDScott, Jeff Q) have been implemented. All that's left is the obvious need for quotability, which will have to be addressed as a content issue. If we don't get any sourced expansions or other improvements within a few months (which unfortunately seems likely), we may want to revisit this with a another nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nadesico
No intro, so we don't even know if it's a film, a video game or what. Long list of non-notable quotes; may be sufficiently extensive to be copyvio. — Poetlister 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes : 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No consensus yet; extend for 7 days to 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cato (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote extended once more by 3 days to 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC), as consensus is ambiguous without clear position from nominator, and at least one vote is conditional upon changes in the article which haven't been made. I ask participants to make clear statements (where they haven't already) for each of two situations: (A) the article left as-is, and (B) the article significantly changed to provide subject identification and remove copyvio potential. This way, actions taken on the article (or not) by the new close time should provide a consensus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the creator did not make it easy, I believe this refers to a manga or anime (or both). As long as the source is verified and the page is cleaned up, I don't see any reason for the page not to stay (provided of course there is no copyvio, as Poetlister suggests may exist). Of course, should no one show an interest in improving the page, and it remains as it currently exists, I could certainly see it being deleted (and would probably change my vote accordingly at the end of the voting period if it stays as is). ~ UDScott 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My Keep vote is for situation B outlined above by Jeff. ~ UDScott 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs lots of trimming, but there are a few salvageable quotes.--Cato 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Such as?--Poetlister 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As for notability ... the original work might be anime, and manga and novels may have been spin-offs. It could be known in the English speaking world (I don't know personally though). At least notable in Japan. If they are pithy enough to collect on this project ...... I confess I am not a big fan of this kind of works. --Aphaia 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page has not been worked on since VfD nomination, leaving questions of source, copyvio and quality. - InvisibleSun 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that the sheer amount of quoting probably approaches copyvio status, and it certainly doesn't help that we still don't have any clarification on just what the subject is. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are some details to help the discussion. The TV version is titled Kidô senkan Nadeshiko (Martian Successor Nadesico). The IMDb records on this show are sketchy and somewhat self-contradicting (giving both 1996 and 2002 as release years), but it appears that it ran for 26 episodes. Our current article has about 135 dialog-segment quotes (although it's hard to tell given the total lack of readable formatting), which, if the show is the sole source of quotes, would be an average of just over 5 quotes per episode. This probably means many episodes go well over this, but just winnowing out the inane, unoriginal, too-aural/visual, or mere plot-point quotes would probably take care of substantial-copvio concerns — again, if this is the TV show. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . If we can't even get someone to work on this who knows which quotes belong to which of the works with this name, we can't really identify the intended subject. Leaving the current article in place would therefore be propagating confusion. The best alternative to deletion I can think of at the moment would be to replace the entire content with the only quote IMDb has that is at least arguably memorable and non-trivial:
 * Gai: Jiro Yamada is the boring name my mother gave me. Gai Daigoji is the name of my soul!
 * in a section titled "Unidentified episode", rename it to match the TV-show title, and add an intro drawn from the WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that I have essentially replaced the existing article with a basic intro, infrastructure, and the single quote I mentioned above, in a desperate attempt to make something from this article that the community can make a clear decision on. I don't really care if we keep this version or alter it to match the manga or combine the several variations on this work (although I don't recommend the last, given that the anime and manga appear to be rather different). But we need a clear scope for the article, and a reasonable set of pithy quotes specifically from the identified subject. If we find such a limited version acceptable, we can treat the situation as a content dispute, possibly using the history to extract some non-trivial quotes to restore. If we keep this as a TV-show article, we should also move it to Martian Successor Nadesico to match the WP article, and add a Wikiquote link there to encourage contributions here. Unless we use this or some other, similar form of this article that clearly identifies the subject and contains a potentially sourceable selection of pithy quotes, I would go back to my "delete" vote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Kudos to Jeff for his hard work, but if that's the best quote available, then there's no point having an article. I'd delete it myself, but I don't want to close a VfD that I opened if it's controversial. Poetlister 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)