Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enion Halili


 * 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 speedy delete per author request. --Core des at 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Enion Halili
Alright, clearly this article has no support from the community and is a misuse of Wikipedia's existence. I, the author, hereby request the deletion of this article. Thank you for your guidance all who commented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortune500 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can add to the top of the article, and it should be quickly removed.  And thanks for understanding.  Xtifr tälk 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. 7 unique GHits. I'm not sure exactly what he's up to, but I get the feeling it's something along the lines of helping people use Wikipedia like it was MySpace. Conflict of interest. Speediable? Richfife 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article looks innocent enough. Let's see where he's going with it. It's kinda nifty actually. 02.22 21 October 2006
 * Comment. The above comment was left by User:Fortune500, the creator of the article in question.  Snurks T C 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a delete vote per nom. I looked at  but I can't discern if it has anything to do with Enion Halili.   Snurks T C 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note If he were involved in the creation of Wikispaces, he'd be listed here: WikiSpaces credits, so I expect he is not. - Richfife 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Reeks of vanity. EVula 06:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am compelled to defend my article. Please read the updated Objectives section. Also note, I changed WikiSpace to WikiFile.
 * Well, at least thanks for clearing up that this is vanity. EVula 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy delete per nom, plus blatant violation of WP:ASR. (edit: this has wasted enough time, should qualify for speedy under A7.) now qualifies for speedy under G7, author request! Xtifr tälk 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it a few days for people to edit this article and then you will have no grounds to charge vanity. Why am I being vain? Are Autobiographies forbidden on Wikipedia?
 * Not forbidden, but strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. But more importantly, biographies (whether auto- or not) of non-famous people are forbidden, see WP:BIO.  You have to get famous first, then you can have a Wikipedia article.  You can't have a Wikipedia article in the hopes that it will help make you famous (although many people try, hence all the comments about "vanity").  Xtifr tälk 07:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The editor User:Fortune500 is also making nuisance edits by redirecting Enion towards this page, removing other links to Enion, and thereby causing damage to the site navigation. Self-centred stuff. Charles Matthews 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, assume good faith. The history clearly indicates that he created the Enion redir page from scratch; there never was any such article before.  And after creating it, he fixed some links that definitely should not have pointed to his page.  They almost certainly must have been redlinks before.  Creating a disambiguation page would have been better, but what he did was not entirely unreasonable, and may well have been done with Wikipedia's best interests at heart.  Xtifr tälk 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally self-centred and self-promoting.  I would have described this as vanity but that word is discouraged now.  Subject/author clealry states in the las section that his intention is to subvert Wikipedia by encouaging and facilitating similar vanity (oops!) pieces.  I sincerely hope he is not "an average Canadian".  Emeraude 11:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, assume good faith. He's done some stuff that demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the purpose and goals of Wikipedia, but I see no indication that he's motivated by anything other than a sense of pure scientific curiousity.  Now he's being accused of vandalism (prev. comment) and egomania.  Don't bite the newbies.  Let's try to gently guide him to a better understanding of this project, and maybe he'll even turn into a useful contributor.  Xtifr tälk 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting the harmless nature of my article. I certainly would not have gone to the trouble of fixing unrelated links to my page if I was interested in vandalism. Also, I don't know how to create a disambiguation page yet. I am however using this article as a learning tool so that I may contribute (albeit more useful information) in the future. As for the fate of this article, on balance it does more good than harm and supports the spirit of Wikipedia. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortune500 (talk • contribs)
 * The problem is that you're still non-notable, so the article should still be deleted. I would suggest that you get your wiki-bearings by editing something a bit less controversial than an article about yourself. Might I suggest you give Special:Random a whirl? EVula 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't supporting the "harmless nature" of your article. Your article still doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, and does harm Wikipedia by wasting space on non-notable, non-encyclopedic material.  I was (and am) assuming that your obvious mistakes were well-intentioned.  They were, nevertheless, mistakes.  I suggest you read the official policy on What Wikipedia is not (in particular, Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site) before making blanket claims about the "spirit of Wikipedia".  If you want to experiment and learn, I recommend using the Sandbox in the future.  That said, I have faith that you can learn from your mistakes, and will become a useful contributor before long.  Cheers, Xtifr tälk 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete until someone not named Enion Hanili thinks it's worth his/her time to write an article about Enion Hanili. Danny Lilithborne 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like possble hoax/time-wasting irritation to me. My reading of the first paragraph is that this article has been created purely as a provocative attempt to see how long a biography of a non-notable person can survive without being deleted. DWaterson 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Article Creation -> Article AfD = 18 Minutes. I picked it up on Recent Changes Rearguard patrol. - Richfife 23:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No cites that indicate notability. No legitimate links to this article from other articles.  May constitute original research.  There could be more reasons, but those qualifiers should be enough to delete.  Notary137 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Duh. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 01:14, 22 October 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.