Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was KEEP There have been multiple requests to keep by editors who have made no edits other than to this AfD or the Haris Cizmic article. However after ignoring those I looked at the fact that most of the delete comments came before the changes to the article were made and the nominator withdrew the AfD. Plus a review of the article and the references lead me to believe that it should be kept. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic

PROD'ed, PROD removed. Advertising. Images are possible copyright violations.. DarkAudit 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Revision Author had made a good-faith effort to make corrections to the entry. If the temp page he created were used in place of the original, I am inclined to drop the nomination. --DarkAudit 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note another flood of sockpuppets (24 new ones today), below. "Sockpuppet" being defined as new user account whose only contribution is to comment on this AFD. NawlinWiki 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 292 votes for "Haris Cizmic" Hbdragon88 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This user's vote was changed from Delete by the article's author. [1] --Huon 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD tag subsequently removed by author. Reinstated. --DarkAudit 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great page, don't delete this Roberto Giannetti 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i love this page, leave it there. -dalia6969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalia6969 (talk • contribs)
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AND DON'T CHANGE MY VOTE!
    Wildthing61476 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • it's a great page, leave it there djedamrazuk 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and see history --manchesterstudent 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete it, it is obviously an artist who deserves to be herefruskogorac 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire this guy, leave him alone-manchesterunited22 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Advertising, and looks like sockpuppet use as well. NawlinWiki 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an admin protect this AfD from vandalism as apparently the sockpuppets are on the warpath?
    Wildthing61476 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete with inclusive images per nom. —
    =/\= | 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Non-notable, no sources, probably advertising and/or vanity. Huon 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Substitute current version by vastly improved rewrite. Notability is still an issue, but could be established with a little more time. --Huon 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with fire Holy sockpuppets, Batman!
    Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete because of sockpuppets, among other things. —EdGl 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete article and all images, full of copyvios. Sockpuppets all over the place. --
    talk 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • BJAODN worthy, I think. Hbdragon88 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not deserve existance ikh (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Holy sockpuppets Batman! BJK 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - nn scockpuppetry and fraud against Hbdragon by the author.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a general rule, the presence of sockpuppets is an indication that the article is not up to scratch. This is another example. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find notablity, looked pretty good around for him. Found some really old websites on archive.org too. Got a little bit, but doesn't hold a candle to
    Kevin_b_er 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    WP:BURNINATE. SM247 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and Block Obvious Sockpuppets --Alphachimp talk 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REALLY, DELETE MY PAGE, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLICK, BUT TELL ME IS THIS WHAT YOU DO FOR LIVING? WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO POST A PAGE AND THEN TRASH IT?!? GET A LIFE, FIND A GIRL, BANG SOMETHING... GOD, SUCH A LOSERS!--Djedamrazuk 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you--HALASHbALASHkURBALASH 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • men...just arguing...is anyone up for a nice talk to a fine lady? drop me a word to [email protected]MayFlowerMillie 12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave the man alone--DarkSecretDude 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this page, I don't see any reason for it. The page's clean and there aren't any copyright issues--Raphaelo 1963 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against deletion - There are many less important people listed here. I don't see any Sockpuppeting, dude has friends, so what? You can't open more than 6 accounts from a single IP address anyway...--Jonatan%slick 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opose deletion as well...just don't see any good reason other than some personal issues. I remind you, this is not the place for personal things! --JudgeDredd13 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE - this is a slick page though --Mashallah aBoyZ 12:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DELETE MY PAGE - can I be more specific?--Djedamrazuk 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about this... SockPuppets, probably - but I do like the page and there's nothing really wrong there...Hmmmmmmmm --Alehandro R 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not DELETE! --LaZy@wOrk 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also against deletion. Few sockpuppets - yeah, but i would do it too... I was able to find many useful links and websites about the author...dunno...--Ju-On 12:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author - DELETE IT! I'll survive without it- People, do you have a life to live?--Djedamrazuk 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not a place for personal advertising --BlackWindowSue 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU - please delete my page and let's get over with this--Djedamrazuk 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page should STAY here --- 300 votes from Singapur --RedGuardian x 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a GREAT looking page There's no need to delete it, no copyrighted images, clean verbiage. OK, some fraudulent edits...hey, who likes to be treated like this? did you read these comments at all? --MorDoX 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== DO NOT DELETE ==--Morbid Angel55 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't delete this page... It's actually very lovely indeed.--Sasha lynX 69 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== DO NOT DELETE ==--Morbid Angel55 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I don't see anything wrong here, the author has a lot of credibility, the images are obviously his own work, no copyright issues, it seems clean to me - DON'T DELETE--Bernard6 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE THIS ARTICLE - It visually and conceptually activates the essentially transitional quality. I understand it's difficult to enter into this topic because of how the figurative-narrative matrix spatially undermines the substructure of critical thinking. With regard to the issue of content, the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial relationships contextualize a participation in the critical dialogue, however...I think that the reductive quality of the purity of content makes resonant the distinctive formal juxtapositions. But, to keep it short, I say DON'T DELETE! --Onomatopeja tica 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC),[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE, I AM A GREAT DESIGNER AND I CAN'T HAVE MY SPACE IN WIKIPEDIA-SO WHY SHOULD HE BE LISTED HERE?!?--Michelle27 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above posts should show why this article needs to be removed, and the offending sockpuppeter's account blocked.
    Wildthing61476 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am for DON'T DELETE, I can see some personal issues only, no real reasons to remove the page, but if the author wants it down, kill the page.--SImONIdApUHALO 14:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page is technically OK Wildthing(hahaha) you shouldn't blame someone for being sockpuppeter without having the list of matching IP addresses or so. Otherwise, you should apologize --WildWind244 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the page down-actually take it ALL down, who nees wikipedia anyway? It's only a pool for some hungry sharks anyway--Bruce Lee01 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE THIS LISTING there's no copyright violation.--Princess Lea 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone checking the age of "editors" here? this is a great site, I say keep it here and if someone says I am a sockpuppeter, I'll find him personally --Silent Violent 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with the threats already, you've made your point
    Wildthing61476 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do not delete - there's no violation of ANY wikipedia rule--MiloshObilich 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this considered to be up to standards? --Riley 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think page nice...i like...veri much --B.o.r.a.t 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Say whatever you want but i like the guy and therefore DO NOT DARE TO DELETE--Deliberation13 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TO DELETE OR NOT TO DELETE...Now when the holier-than-thou crowd tries to call me a slut in so many words, or attempts to insinuate that I have no idea what real love is all about, I just have to smile a big, sloppy, satisfied grin...--IsusChrist 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then why don't one of you help him out and fix the page? It's not beyond saving if someone with more knowledge steps up and makes it more than what looks like an advertisement. Some biographical information and links to outside sources would be a good start. Just because it's a candidate for deletion doesn't mean it will be. Put more time into fixing the page and less ranting here, and the page can be saved. --DarkAudit 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DARKAUDIT is a wise man. Well said, Sir. No need to be bitter, it's the easiest thing in the world. We hate our own neighbors, so why wouldn't we hate someone we can't even see? A little help is what we all need, one way or another...--Liverpool 888 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Award-winning? OK, what awards? How old is he? Where was he born? Where did he receive his training? Make the page worthy of keeping. --DarkAudit 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • i have created a temporary subpage ('cause the label on a page says i can't edit the page now). can you please check it out and let me know. I don't have experience with posting on wikipedia, so i could use some help - especially with my grammar : thanks--Djedamrazuk 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's more like it. Now if someone could point me to that subpage, please. (Don't worry. I just want to see it.) --DarkAudit 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's at Talk:Haris_Cizmic/Temp. It's an improvement, but still carries all the copyrighted/disputed images. And still doesn't cite any valid sources, I might add. ~ Matticus78 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better! The temp page is getting close to Keep status as far as I'm concerned. As for the copyrights, if they're his own work, doesn't that allow him to use them here? Or would the ones who commissioned the work have first claim of copyright? --DarkAudit 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks guys, see i have no experience with wikipedia, so i did put those "copyright" labels there, but i have changed them now. There is no copyright issue, all the images are available on artist's website as well, and there is no copyright case pending on any of posted pictures. Please let me know what else is needed -- THANKS FOR THE CORRECTIONS DARKAUDIT!--Djedamrazuk 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're quite welcome. I'm glad that everyone's had a chance to calm down and get things fixed. With the biographical and other information added, I don't have a problem with the revised page. It's quite an improvement over the original. --DarkAudit 20:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The temp page is indeed much better. But the complete lack of sources (newspaper reports about the awards or the design jobs (especially for BMW), for example) is still a problem. IMHO the greatest claim of notability would be his musical career, which is barely mentioned at all. The copyvio tag seems strange to me, since the user who added it didn't state whose copyright was supposed to be violated. The page isn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, either. Huon 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the problem is that no one lists awards online after 5-6 years. (There is no award for the BMW, just a magazine ad designed for them, available for preview on www.theaxart.com I did not post that ad, because of their logo on it). I am not sure about Memorex, if they still keep old awards listed, but i can provide some scanns and screenshots. Musical awards are just some big paper things with hard cover. I could probably provide around 60 magazine and newspaper articles, but majority of them is not in english and they are just old scans. To post them - it would probably look ridiculous and funny. Shouldn't be enough to swear on the bible or something... :) ? --Djedamrazuk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just crossed my mind - if the author was an art director of few magazines, (and they are available for public view on his website), shouldn't that be a printed representation of his design work? also, could this help - http://cosmeticsurgerytimes.com/cosmeticsurgerytimes/classified/classifiedDetail.jsp?id=308191

--Djedamrazuk 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the difficulties with awards nearly a decade old, but Wikipedia requires
reliable sources
. While I personally certainly believe that everything written on that article is true, that's not enough.
  • Comment per my lineout above, my original objections with the entry have been rendered moot by the version in the temp page. Although citing sources may still be at issue, that can be addressed with a little effort. --DarkAudit 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am working on it. i'll also include a letter from Mr.Bill Clinton & photo will let you know when it's up and i'll provide the link to documents & images. Thanks for help! --Djedamrazuk 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added some sources, scans, links, references, etc. Check it out and please let me know --Djedamrazuk 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. Make that the main page, and as far as I'm concerned, the nomination is moot and therefore, dropped. --DarkAudit 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks man. how to make it a main page and how to get rid of that annoying Copyright Violation header? - BTW, I owe you a beer, DarkAudit.--Djedamrazuk 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the main page article by the rewrite (with some minor edits) and removed the copyvio tag, see talk for detailed explanation. --Huon 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Huon, it does look nice now. What happens next? Who decides about the page's destiny now? thanks.--Djedamrazuk 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, an AfD is open for five days. In the end, an admin takes a look and decides wether the arguments for deletion outweight those for keeping the article. (The quality of "votes" is taken into account, not just the quantity.) I assume that DarkAudit's retraction of the AfD will count heavily in the article's favor, but it might happen that Cizmic's notability is still considered insufficient (see
WP:Music for notability guidelines). For now I would just wait and see. --Huon 22:19, 29 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haris_Cizmic&oldid=1137899675"