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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curdy[edit]

Curdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is part of a large (self?)-promotional crosswiki spamming campaign, that includes wikiquote, wikisource, commons (with an so-called "fan drawing" uploaded by the same contributor that published the authors portrait photo....), a biography about the author, one about the series (this one), one about the character, and in some languages even about each book. Furthermore there are several external links that has no direct relevance to this book/series, but only can be understood as SEO-attempts. The articles are wikiwide made by someone not fluent in the native language in case, copying and editing the article about J.K. Rowling, and traces of this misunderstood translation can be found several places, like swedish, nynorsk (seven books, british author) and dutch.
There are several errors in the article; most alarming that the article(s) tries to give the impression that there has been published a trilogy of books in english. The facts are, AFAIK, that there has been published two books, only in spanish, and the first of them even with a very small publishing house. And there are some places inconsequence about the authors nationality and place of birth between the different articles in each language, and sometimes between languages.
This article is so far deleted in norwegian, danish, icelandic, italian and polish, and are being discussed in latin and portugese / pt#2. The polish admin compared this case, with good reason, to the Serrano case.
A deletion should also include Curdy (character) and IMO also a down-editing of the authors article Artur Balder.
Bw, Orland (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I made an error that made this come out as (2nd nomination). My mistake. --Orland (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (along with Artur Balder and Curdy (character)) as spam. This looks like a crude and heavy-handed attempt to bootstrap the notability of a cheap Harry Potter clone by carpetbombing wiki sites. No real verifiable notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's excellent and well-researched reasoning. There are some (weak) clims of notability here, but they appear to be either false or at least unverifiable, and the article appears to be part of an interwiki spam/SEO campaign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Artur Balder and Curdy (character) as spam. --Kjetil r (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — I have tagged Artur Balder and Curdy (character) for AFD, both bundled into this discussion:

Artur Balder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Curdy (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete all (G11) — It's a walled garden that is growing spam. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with speedy delete of all three -- outright spam, and the reference links appear to largely be hoaxes (no Random House page for it, not in an art gallery, etc.). DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It has come to my knowledge during this day, that one of his books, probably this one, is translated into dutch and italian. That is relevant information to his defence; but this case is still a matter of massive spamming beyond significance, IMO. --Orland (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per it's a serious case of crosswiki spam, without proof of relevance. Both articles are also being voted on pt.wiki and probably going for deletion. Daimore ^msg 23:08, 12 December 2008 (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.