Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfield Creations

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.  RasputinAXP  c 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfield Creations

"Starfield Creations" is an unregistered company name created by an amateur "furry" porn artist. This page was clearly created as a personal promotion tactic by a friend of said artist under the guise of a legitimate business organization. Considering the fact that this site is not to be used for promotion of people or their "businesses" who are not particularly famous or noteworthy, I think it should be deleted. I have seen articles taken down about the work of people far better known in the art community, and this just seems to be a sneaky way for personal promotion of a recent amateur art school graduate. KeijiIno 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn and...gross AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam."
• Delete I'm sorry, but this line made me laugh: "Andrew Dickman's art style is diverse, mixing American cartoon style with that of Japanese anime style." Oh my God, that's never been done before! Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Michael 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to being published by Antarctic Press, one of the more notable indie comic book companies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per Andrew Lenahan. Potential bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Andrew again. I must say I don't know much about notable comic publishers, so I'll take his word for it. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Your information for deletion is flaming BS and blatent defamation, I'm not a "furry porn artist" nor did I make this entry, nor did I ask a friend to make it. I just recently found out about this wikipedia entry and I find it nice to know that someone recognizes my works for once. User: AndrewDickman - 011:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until a better argument is made per Adam Anania. I am not going to necessarily argue that the entry remain, but I would like to clearly state that KeijiIno's argument is completely incorrect and ridiculous. Checking the update history for this entry, I know for a fact that Andrew did not create nor has ever altered this entry. KeijiIno's argument is clearly full of bias, bitterness, and from my own knowledge of Andrew, mere lies. Neither Andrew nor I are overly familiar with Wikipedia's regulations on entries, but this entry is certainly not being used by Andrew himself for his own promotion, and KeijiIno's arguments for removing it are surely laughable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.130.201 (talk • contribs).
• Comment I have strengthened my keep argument because it's looking like this is a bad-faith nom. This AfD and any edits associated with it are the nominator's first edits. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per first couple of editors. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of who made the page in the first place, the fact remains that it's mere exsistence is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Andrew isn't famous outside droves of slobering internet fans. I will say it again: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.". I am quoting Wikipedia's policy on this. Regardless of wether Andrew is a furry porn artist (which he most certainly is, his DA gallery is full of proof), it is still against the rules for Andrew, or any of his fans, to make a page on Wikipedia about him. Being a small flea on the dog's hind quarters of the animation industry does not merit recognition on an online encyclopedia. KeijiIno
• STRONG DELETE This person and her organization might have a lot of fans who have come to defend it, but the fact still remains that Wikipedia is not meant to be used for personal promotion or the promotion of friends and friends' businesses. Please review the above point: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." This was quoted from the Wikipedia user guide. It clearly states, whether said individual being defamed or not, that the promotion of an individual or his/her friends or businesses are not to be promoted here. Antarctic Press is a little known niche publisher and thus not notable as would be DC Comics or Marvel. Anyone can get amateur works published there. Bearing these facts in mind, I agree this is not an individual noteworthy enough to have a listing on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Cabo (talk • contribs).

Comment user's first edit. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Barely on the _furry_ radar, let alone any sort of general one. Article provides no evidence for his notability. Tevildo 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert/promotion and for lack of general notability. The only connection to the asserted-to-be-notable Antarctic Press is the one line referring to one of the works, "The comic was first published by Antarctic Press, but not in its entirety". --MCB 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. _I've_ had something published by AP. :) AP itself is notable, the furry fandom is notable, I have an article on WikiFur, Andrew should have one too. But not for Wikipedia itself. Tevildo 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see any semblence of notability other than being published by an independent comic book house, which certainly doesn't prove notability hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:19, 12 July 2006 (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.