Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka Dunin
Elonka Dunin is a Wikipedian who has gotten a friend to write an article about her and then edited it extensively. Working as a game developer does not make her notable, being mentioned in a few magazines does not make her notable. Being an amateur cryptographer (or amateur anything for that matter) does not make her notable. Working for a company that won an award for its product does not make her notable. Being thanked in a book does not make her notable. This is simply a case of someone abusing Wikipedia to gain publicity for themselves. There is way too much of that going on these days. Also note that a previous VfD was never closed. Danny 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Earlier AFD is at: Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin
 * Comment: The article has a notation on the talk page that the AfD was closed as a keep on 12 December. I'm not sure that's actually correct but I went ahead and marked the first AfD as closed for completeness. ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Barely on the edge of WP:NN but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of WP:AUTO violations. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the first AfD wasn't closed... to my eye, it looks like a no consensus close, the arguments advanced are not clearly one way or the other. I looked long and hard at this article. I don't like to see vanity articles here. But I'm not convinced this article isn't about a notable person. The number of different publications cited, the published authorhood, the number of hits, the tie to Kryptos all seem to confer some notability. None is enough in my view all by itself, but together they seem to add up to just barely notable enough. Keep (with regret because I don't like to go against Danny, he's pretty sage). ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete page is back to its original state so my vote reverts also. Delete dreadful vanity great-great-great-grandmother [was] Polish playwright, voice talent [on] etc.  Neutral  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (as subject). There seems to be some possibility that this is a bad faith nomination on the part of Danny, because I disagreed with him earlier today in a Deletion review on the Musa Cooper article . As for the accusation that I'm just using my Wikipedia article as self-promotion, trust me, my Wikipedia article ain't it. ;) When I need to get the word out, I use my elonka.com website. To be honest, as much as I love editing Wikipedia (I think I'm at around 6,500 edits at this point ), my own Wikipedia bio article is something that I tend to perceive as being drastically out of date, but I try to respect WP:AUTO and keep my fingers out of it except for very simple factual updates. As for "proving" notability, let's see:  Elonka Dunin is a published author, notable game developer (some of her work is even cited as references elsewhere on Wikipedia), and she's a frequently-cited consultant on the CIA's Kryptos sculpture.  Typing "Kryptos" into Google shows that her site has even higher placement than that of the CIA or Wired.. The elonka.com website has over 2 million page views, and the name "Elonka Dunin" is cited often in the news.  Just this year alone, it's mostly related to stories about Kryptos, and a Da Vinci Code-related story, (see: Smithy Code). Recent media appearances that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia bio (gee, I must have been falling down on the job in terms of using my Wikipedia bio for self-promotion): Washington Post, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann , NPR's All Things Considered , Wired News (this story was also the #1-ranked headline on AOL). Want more?  Check the place I do use for self-promotion, my press page. --Elonka 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of that notability applies to the website though, not to you, no? perhaps elonka.com is what needs the article? That may be hairsplitting though, I dunno. Perhaps both do. Somehow, though, I just don't see Danny as doing a WP:POINT on anyone, that may not be a good place to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not bad faith at all. This simply made me aware of the fact that there was an article about you. Whether it is in that article, your user page, or your talk page, you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that is simply unacceptable. I sepnd many long hours every day on the phone at the Wikimedia office, dealing with people who insist that we include articles about them because they are "notable." I get it from wannabe actors, pizza parlors, inventors, bloggers, you name it. The same efforts to prove notability, the same complaints, the same personal attacks (and I see that comment as a personal attack). Sorry, but there are guidelines. Those guidelines may have been bent out of shape by process over the past year or so, but there are guidelines nonetheless. WP:AUTO is a guideline that was violated by the incredible amount of vapid information posted to this article, and by the fact that in the talk page Elonka goes on an on about where to find even more information about her. For everyone reading this I ask: Will we have an article for every person involved in the creation of video games--they are massive productions? Will we have every person involved in the creation of a film? Just look at the roller for any film to understand what this will entail. Where are the limits where we say "No, this is not worthy of inclusion. This is barely verifiable." Wikipedia is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online must not be turned into a means of boosting someone's own website or ego. This is nothing more than spamming. Stating "Strong Keep" about one's self is nothing more than spamming either, and very tasteless spamming at that. oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions. Danny 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose Jimbo should stop commenting on Talk:Jimmy Wales to correct his information, right? -- nae'blis (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very harsh, Danny. You can argue for the deletion of the article without attacking the subject of it. Haukur 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be reasonably notable abakharev 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lar. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as borderline notable. I mean, I know who she is, and she's fairly well known among other game industry insiders too, so she's probably at least as notable as many authors or musicians that have WP articles. That said, article would benefit from a stronger case for notability.  --Alan Au 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep She seems to meet WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - she wrote a fairly successful book, and has a reputation among cryptographers. The article may not emphasise this enough, because it's modeled after the other biography pages on wikipedia which tend to linger on a person's childhood and connections, rather than their accomplishments and notability. I didn't know I was disqualified from writing about her because I've seen her face to face like twice at industry networking functions. Subversified 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep heh, I actually heard that piece on NPR's All Things Considered the other day coming home from work. So yes, I would say that she is reasonably notable for her work on Kryptos. Other sources on it are in fact reliable sources and as such I'm voting keep.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (pared down at 05:02, 23 July 2006)

*Keep now that the article has been totally revamped, my previous concerns have been abated. I think it should be watched for WP:AUTO violations, I assume most of them are now gone. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Assertions of notability insufficient for own article. Merge some detail about her work and her website on Kryptos into the Kryptos article - not enough on their own for their own article though. Otherwise, I am so far unconvinced about her other claims to notability such as the game career. Also, some vanity problems here Bwithh 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bwithh. I am likewise unconvinced. AdamBiswanger1 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. If kept, the unverifiable cruft and vanity needs to be removed. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough for me. Add verification and cleanup. SynergeticMaggot 06:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but desperately needs paring of non-notable bio material. Borderline vanicruft. Reads like it has to make a case for its own existence rather than being a useful bio sketch. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it looks like this might be kept I've made a first stab at paring it.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * KeepWrote a successful book, and a reputation among cryptographers and there's enough refrences from such as CNN to establish her notability. Englishrose 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO per above. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 11:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:BIO for multiple non-trivial articles by uninvolved persons; published a reasonably successful book; and, appears to have gained general notoriety for her work on Kryptos. Google shows 27,000 hits, some book listings and forum discussions, but many interviews beyond what's shown in article.  I can't say as I see any violations of WP:AUTO, since the material generally seems NPOV, and verifiable.  I do agree with Danny regarding the way the article is written, it places all the non-notable stuff at the top.  Tychocat 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Many mentions in passing is not the same thing as cultural capital.  Some details can merge to the products and endeavors that are notable, but the article is lavish, given the amount of notability the subject has.  Geogre 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Sorry, but I don't think that she is notable enough to have her own page. Th ε Halo Θ 12:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not super notable, but seems to meet a minimum stndard and Wikipedia isn't paper, after all. Ace of Sevens 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Exceeds notability litmus tests without much effort, IMHO. -Quartermaster 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not quite notable enough. Blizzard of One 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable enough. 27100 hits on Google. Manojb 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please she is notable enough and passes bio guideline Yuckfoo 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - the book sells it for me. // Gargaj 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--Czar Yah 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to pass bio guidelines.  I agree that WP:AUTO violations should be watched for, but I don't see any here as of now. --Myles Long 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - active Wikipedians should have to meet a somewhat higher hurdle to avoid the appearance of preferentialism... I think this type of thing lends ammunition towards those would attack Wikipedia based on perceived bias. No vote on this one, though - too far out of my area. bd2412  T 19:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes the Google test, mentioned or cited multiple times in print media. Asking for more is to apply a notability test that I believe is above and beyond what I've seen proposed or applied elsewhere on the Wikipedia. --Zippy 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Being an amateur cryptographer doesn't get u a wikipedia article. But writing a book, however unknown it is, does give my vote to keep the article. I would say, delete most of the parts of the game developer bit.--Ageo020 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems consistent with the general feeling on AfD so I'll do that now.  Dl yo ns 493    Ta lk  01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re:Comment Don't understand the "delete the game developer" stuff. Can anyone clarify? Why? -Quartermaster 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty notable. Tons of less notable people on wiki, why target this article for deletion? --rewtguy 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is notable within the realm of both cryptography and game development, as evidenced by her works and broad media coverage. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy keep smashes requirements of WP:V ... and WP:BIO ... this is a speedy keep. Danny... regardless of your intentions this does come off as a revenge listing.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonably notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Alkivar. Not only does this read like a revenge listing, but using the word "abusing" in the nom reads like an outright attack on a fellow Wikipedian. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems reasnoble as a bio. Daviegold 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with most of keep opinions above. Subject plently notable enough to have an article. Exactly what should be included in the article and who can edit it etc. shouldn't be decided by afd. Petros471 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (= original version)

Comment the page has been reverted to its original state - voters may wish to reconsider whether what they voted for corresponds to the current state of the article. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm getting confused with all the different versions. Are we now determining WHICH version is notable enough? Can't we work on the broader question of whether Elonka Dunin is notable enough to warrant an entry about her, and THEN wrestle with the specifics of format and content as one normally does with any Wikipedia entry? I'm getting the two concepts of voting for deletion, and editing an article mixed up. FWIW I think editing is needed, but we may not all agree herein where, what, who, and how. -Quartermaster 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment while I agree with that in principle, I'm confident that the page will revert to its original cruft the minute editors eyes move on. I was hoping we could agree on a sort of reference version to keep that in check. But the water is now so muddy, I don't think a reasonable version is achievable.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; I think Bwithh makes good sense: Merge what is relevant, but not really seeing a whole article here. Then again, I may be out of touch with what is considered encyclopedic. Essjay   ( Talk )  17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - it needs another 'ham handed' edit at least to make it relevant and not autobiographical cruft. Possibly a redirect to Kryptos and a single paragraph there explaining her relevance to it. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it could use some trimming (not quite as dramatic as the one done above, however), but for the topic itself (which is more important, in this situation, than the actual quality of the article) is notable as per WP:BIO, and as such, should be kept. EVula 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and smack somebody with a trout minnow for sectionalizing the AFD by what version of the article they were seeing at the time. I pity the closer... -- nae'blis (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This notable person meets and exceeds WP:BIO criteria.  Members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be setting positive examples, not making snide comments such as "oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", which is a provocative and unncessary personal attack by any interpretation.  RFerreira 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep though it may need some cleanup. If you are concerned about her edits to that page or to its comment page, the correct response is not an AfD; it would be to go through the mediation process on Wikipedia. Jacqui ★ 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't see any problem here. bbx 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Zippy, RFerreira and others. As for her edits, a polite discussion on her talk page along with a gentle, scholarly request that only citations from published secondary sources be included should more than suffice. Wyss 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject seems to meet a variety of notability tests. The editing of an article by the subject is not forbidden on WP, and edits are transparent so what is the problem? Aye-Aye 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article very clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. Danny's accusations that this is used for publicity don't seem to be based on anything whatsoever.  I sincerely hope Elonka is incorrect in her suspected cause of this AfD. JDoorj a m     Talk 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments, figure meets WP:BIO notability criteria guideline and the nomination for deletion shows poor form. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm confused. Telsa and Angela and so tried getting their articles deleted, and they're definately known around the world :-) Elonka wants hers kept? IIRC Telsa had politely offered to nominate this page for deletion before. Note that Danny is very likely acting in good faith. Kim Bruning 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that Angela's fame is as a Wikipedia founder as a founder of Wikia, Wikipedia board member, and related work. Elonka's article doesn't mention her role in Wikipedia, so the cases are not similar. Also the word "politely" does not easily lend itself to describing the way this was nominated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Angela was not a Wikipedia founder...Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with Danny's reasoning in his nomination statement.  I believe those things he mentions cumulatively make her notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cla68 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per most of above comments. the wub "?!"  18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments, notable in her fields of game design and cryptography. Dreadlocke 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. She is quoted in The Guardian and in Science magazine and in The Washington Post + she's mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.com + she has 25000+ Google-hits + she's quoted as a reference in a couple of WP articles + she seems to be fairly known among cryptographers + she is a published author. By the way I don't see how writing a comprehensive explanation (that includes several external references) on a discussion page could be qualified as "very tasteless spamming". And as for "whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", see WP:AGF. --Zoz (t) 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per just about everyone. Everyking 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete has not changed the world. NN. Vanity --Musaabdulrashid 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing the world is hardly a requirement of notability. If it were, we wouldn't have articles like Alfonso Ribeiro or Mike Edwards (baseball). Ace of Sevens 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We ALL change the world; the questions that follow have to do with the quantity and quality of those changes. The quantity and quality of our changes to the world, in the context of considering deletion of a biographical entry in Wikipedia, are of course fair game for discussion. -- Quartermaster 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; What a ridiculous and childish spectacle. - 81.178.239.93 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mirror Vax 14:31, 27 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.