Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cornelius Quartet

:{{la|The Cornelius Quartet}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Fixing unfinished nom by User:Folk smith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The user Nick mallory continues to place stubs w/o applying the proper tags. Both Sinclair and I asked the user to not post these "articles" w/o identifying them as stubs. He has refused to do so. I would suggest that instead, this article and the others like it that I have flagged be merged into the article for Michael Moorcock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::Where is the wikipedia requirement that I tag articles I've just started writing? I asked folk smith to point out the policy he's quoting, but he seemed unable to do so. A glance at his talk page shows other users pointing out that he's been tagging quite a lot of pages incorrectly in his few days on wikipedia so far, one person writing 'I'm having to undo all your edits, and I really encourage you to stop, read a bit, and learn before you take actions such as this.'. User Sinclair, on the other hand, seems to have an entirely blank user and talk page. Nick mallory (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Michael Moorcock#Select bibliography or similar: If there isn't going to be any information in this stub, I see no reason to keep it that way. I say redirect because they are popular novels, and "The Cornelius Quartet" would be a popular search term. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::This AfD, as I point out below, was started a few minutes after I started the article. Please revisit it and see that there's plenty of information contained in it which would be too much to put in the Moorcock article. I started writing the article because it was a red link on the select bibliography list you quote. There are plenty of other books on that list which have their own articles. You admit yourself that these are 'popular novels' and would be a likely search term, so why do you propose deleting an article on them? Nick mallory (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep These are among the most famous novels by a highly acclaimed British science fiction writer. Should the articles on the novels of Jane Austen be redirected back to her name? I started these articles literally minutes before this AfD was posted. They are referenced, categorised and accurate in their details. If folksmith cannot post an Afd correctly, one wonders why he is so keen to criticise the wikiwork of others. I note in passing that he has been a registered username since November 22nd and so may not be aware that articles on individual works are acceptable. The Quartet (or chronicles) are notable as a compilation because all the Jerry Cornelius stories are linked, they are essentially the continuation of one huge, fractured tale in the Michael Moorcock "mulitverse" and the article in question quotes him and others as saying this. Nick mallory (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems to have a couple decent sources. I would also think that since the author is notable, the book would be too. I would encourage User:Nick mallory to put a little more meat on his stubs first, however -- it's all right to make a stub, but please make sure that the notability of the subject is a little clearer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::It has eight (now nine) sources, it was put up for AfD almost immediately I started writing it and would have been in its current, fairly meaty, state rather sooner if I hadn't had to comment here instead of actively making wikipedia better. Nick mallory (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - there is clearly notability for a volume that has stayed in print for 30 years. Also there is "no" justification for deletion of an article of this type for a work by an author as notable as Michael Moorcock. Especially after such a short period of time. What is this place coming too. By the way I am no fan, do not hold a candle for Moorcock, I have never read one of his works. I however recognise his place in the pantheon of SF writers. I have improved the citations etc. and format of the article. There is need to explicit statements of notability in the article even allowing the article is so new. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article's subject is notable and it is well referenced. N.B. Nominating an article to AfD 30 min. after creation is not nice. feydey 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The Cornelius books are some of the most notable works by one of the most notable writers in the genre, and the subject is the protagonist of any number of other books as well. Also, frankly, I have to question the judgement of the person who nominated it for deletion. Regardless of the prior history of any editor, I think we have to consider the notability of the subject first last and foremost. The prior history of the creating editor cannot be considered before the subject itself. John Carter 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and a suggestion that WP:SNOW be used to close this. I won't rehash the above statements, but I will point out that if you're planning to flesh out an article on your own, it may not hurt to keep it in userspace until its Afd-proof. Xymmax 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Response to Above - This is exactly point I was trying to make to the poster on hu's talk page when I first noticed the Moorcock novel stubs. The poster continued to post stubs and so I nominated for deletion.I'd like to point out that the four other stubs that Nick mallory posted last night are still stubs and have not been expanded on. I suggest that the poster write complete articles before posting them.--Folk smith 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

::Why not put them up for AfD Folk? Seeing as your arguments have been so successful in this one. Nick mallory 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:::However he does have a point that articles do need to be developed and not just left as stubs. Try perhaps to work on one really good article before moving on to another. But all the same, keep editing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability of the works clearly established. Also, bringing a stub to AfD immediately after creation is a refusal to show good faith; if you see a stub, be bold and tag it as such, instead of wasting time with a deletion debate. —Quasirandom 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Okay, the article is sourced, well written, and has footnotes. The author is very notable and the series The Cornelius Quartet is notable as well. There is not much content yet, but it was nominated for deletion 34 minutes after being written. I think we should give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one. Also, this appears to be a bad faith nom by Folk smith because, last time I checked, not classifying an article as a stub was not one of the criterion for deletion. There is no policy that says the article creator has to apply a stub tag. Additionally, there is no policy that says an article must be complete before being posted. Wikipedia itself is a work in progress. It's laughable to suggest that an article should be finished completely before being posted. Oh yeah, it's also hard to see the ground right now, pretty snowy. --Cyrus Andiron 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the fact tha the book(s) have apparnetly been reprinted and translated suggests that they are notable. I regard nominating an article within hours of its being created to be very bad form. The author has done a lot of work on it, possibly after the first nomination. Perhaps he has not discovered that new articles can be tagged "underconstruction", to prevent such ill-natured attention. Peterkingiron 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - most certainly notable. And there is no admonition on creating stubs. In fact, stubs are the starting point for articles to grow. We would be nowhere if articles had to spring forth fully formed. -- Whpq 18:06, 4 December 2007 (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.