Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (3rd 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka Dunin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable wikipedian, COI interests but her lack of notability is what is compelling here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * She's notable per WP:GNG. A sufficient number of sources cover her in connection with the two cryptanalysis efforts for Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector, so it's not WP:BIO1E either. Some coverage was trivial like the one-quote mention in a CNN article, which I removed (because it just said she ran a web forum dedicated to one of the problems), but there's enough non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press: NYT, wired.com and some lesser newspapers. You'd expect that two significant efforts in cryptanalysis would be covered by some more specialized press, which would allow a higher quality article (on the two projects and her contribution), but the sources, although somewhat sensationalist, and perhaps not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic, are sufficient by Wikipedia standards. Her crypto exercises book (2 editions with slightly different titles) appears be held at some libraries, but not at academic ones, so it's fair to say that it targets amateur cryptographers. She's no Bruce Schneier, (compare with his applied crypto book), but it does add something to her notability. I don't have an opinion on her executive career in the game industry; it seems sourced mainly from primary sources, and frankly I think detracts from the readability of the article by cluttering it with various dry lists. YMMV. VG &#x260E; 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) This is a copy & paste of what I've previously posted on the article talk page on this issue.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionably meets GNG. I do not understand why this is being nominated for deletion rather than cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion after I cleaned it up today (thoroughly familiarizing myself with the content while doing so). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - if it weren't the fact that the person in question wasn't a high editcount admin, this would be a clear cut case of failure due to WP:BIO. However I can see that it's just going to be a personality vote unfortunately :-(  Shot info (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Factual error - article was last concluded as "keep" in a well-attended July 2006 AFD. Elonka was a non-admin and neither her non-existant adminship nor her edit count played any part in that AFD. Rather than bad-faith assumption that any keep would be due to people taking a stance based on adminship of the user, it would be better to discuss the actual evidence as it relates to notability (or otherwise) and WP:BIO. FT2 (Talk 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to amateur cryptography. While there is definitely some good content in this article, I'm simply not convinced that this article should exist as a stand-alone piece. Unquestionably, there is a place for Wikipedia to cover amateur cryptography and the subject of this article is probably notable enough to warrant detailed mention at an amateur cryptography article. However, there are other amateur cryptographers who probably deserve mention as well and we can do so in one area so as to not run into problems with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The context of this person's notability is in connection to amateur cryptography and nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a possibility. I suggest that the clean-up of this article continues and the other article is created, and then we can see where we are. Verbal   chat  09:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per VasileGaburici, meets WP:GNG in my book. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Keep and clean-up for now, but it needs a massive overhaul - especially in regards to sources establishing notability. Judicious pruning and tightening-up are also in order. After this is done the article should be reassessed. Verbal   chat  09:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I haven't done any research on the subject and therefore cannot vote delete or keep, maybe userfy per the above vote? D ARTH P ANDA duel 12:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to merge per SA, Willy, Guy, etc. Reasoning the same. Verbal   chat  20:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Kryptos or a similar article on amateur cryprography, where Dunin's main claim to fame rests. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but a possibly comparable case is that of Alex Selby, who shared the million pound prize with Oliver Riordan for cracking the "insoluble" Eternity puzzle. He subsequently became a developer of Eternity II and is mentioned only in those articles; he has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Cambridge. I think press coverage for Selby and Riordan was quite extensive at the time (neither Selby nor Riordan are publicity seekers, unlike the creator of Eternity). Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - references in article establish notability straightforwardly per WP:N. No reason to make a naval-gasing exception to the usual rule here. Wily D  14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No convincing rationale provided for deletion - notability satisfied on its face, as has been addressed in prior deletion discussions. Avruch  T 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge To me the Kryptos / Cyrillic projector are close enough to a single event.  Otherwise a couple of puzzle books and working at a game company are far from notable. If not merge, examine James_Sanborn for a more suitable weight.  In its current state the article is a vanity piece by someone with lots of friends on Wikipedia who will knee-jerk keep it.Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That the article on James Sanborn is lacking in depth or detail is not an argument to cut another article down or merge or eliminate it. see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you're making a variant of that argument in that part of your statement. (By the way I know binary by heart too :) ) No comment at this time on whether keep, merge, or delete is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the "merge to article on XYZ because she's only famous in connection with that". Wikipedia ≠ Britannica. Britannica would probably cover Dunin in an article on those puzzles, and would likely combine them in a single article since they're both designed by the artist James Sanborn, which ironically has stub-level article in Wikipedia. This is a hypothetical discussion, since Britannica doesn't have an article on any of this stuff. It's unfortunate that people with Ph.D.'s that won million pound prizes are less covered in Wikipedia that Elonka Dunin is, but on the other hand people like Ashley Todd have an article in Wikipedia, and it's hard to imagine a less meritorious individual. Wikipedia doesn't judge the merits of most individuals for the purpose of including them; it only judges the amount of "paper trail" if you like. There are some exceptions like WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:MUSICBIO, but sufficient press coverage guarantees inclusion via WP:GNG. Like it or not, Dunin is involved in some endeavors that captured the public imagination, which in turn generated press coverage, which suffices for WP:GNG. Frankly for cryptography-related discussions none of the mainstream newspapers, or NPR, or even PBS NOVA are reliable sources. Some of the comments made local newspapers were downright hilarious, e.g. "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart." But that's probably why those articles focused on the human aspect of these endeavors, e.g. the NYT article reads more like a movies script than math/science reporting; call it a dramatization if you will. But the bottom line is that she is covered in some detail, so WP:GNG is satisfied. VG &#x260E; 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sorry, disagree completely with nominator. Dunin is notable; her status on Wikipedia, or her edit count there have no relevance whatsoever in any discussion about her article. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep disagree with nominator. Subject is definitely notable enough for inclusion per WP:N.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - probably not the most encyclopaedic subject, but there is some coverage in secondary sources, hence we should keep the article. Novidmarana (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently notable as an author by our normal standards. that subject is also active at Wikipedia should be irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, even though I !voted keep, she's not notable as an author: her book has practically no reviews (only two by customers on Amazon), and it is held two dozen U.S. public libraries, but not by academic ones. The white papers chapters she co-authored with other IGDA SIG memebers don't seem to have any notoriety (citations etc.) VG &#x260E; 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is not notable because they edit Wikipedia, clearly, but VasileGaburici and the two dozen sources cited within the article do show why she is, per WP:N.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep, in a few WP:RS, though it's slightly sad to have this article. I've not looked at the details of them but I don't think we need the articles on several of her relations, if they're still on wiki.:) Sticky Parkin 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is notable enough independently of her work at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject of the article has plenty of reliable third-party coverage as a result of her work decrypting those sculptures. I suppose it has little to do with the discussion, but this nomination seems to be riding dangerously close to violating WP:POINT. J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO; share concerns with editor above about the motivations of this nomination but will WP:AGF for now. Coldmachine Talk 08:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that I and Elonka do not have issues I suggest you do indeed assume good faith. It appears our standards are deteriorating if so many people honestly believe this unnotable amateur cryptographer passes WP:N, shameful given that so many much more notable individuals (esp in the non-English speaking 3rd world, which is most of us) are not covered. The alleged sources are no proof whatsoever that this person is notable, and this indicates slipping standards. IMO the fact that she is a wikipeedia editor is clearly relevant and this afd is the proof of this, and I am not the first to pointy this out. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only evidence I see of our standards deteriorating is our continued addition of pop culture references where they do not belong. This one is just fine.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes well she has about as much notability as an amateur pop star. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the disconnect here is that (speaking for myself) the quantity and quality of RS's cited make up for any perceived lack of depth in coverage. I reviewed the cited sources and simply don't see a GNG issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination says nothing that was not said in the previous discussion a few weeks ago and so is a disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL . Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify I believe the last time this was nominated for deletion was approximately 2 years ago. coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon - I misread 2006 as 2008. I have amended my comment accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: As I noted at Talk:Elonka Dunin and Talk:Elonka Dunin, I disagree with a merge and subsequently disagree with a deletion of the article. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable and satisfies WP:BIO and WP:GNG. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient notability is indicated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kryptos per Mathsci. -- Nevard 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is clearly notable for activities outside WP, per cited sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for more than one event which is born out by strong sources, not that you'd know that now due to the systematic source removal, misinformation and general hatchet job currently being labeled as "improvements" to the article. Shell    babelfish 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to improve the article instead of just bitchin'. The only sources I've removed contained trivial, one sentence references to her, but were used to "support" statements in the Wikipedia article that were not unambiguously made in the references. VG &#x260E; 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also can you point out some misinformation added to the article? Misinformation was definitely removed, like books in which she was merely acknoledged beeing passed as books to which she contributed. Based on your user page you seem to AGF and dislike vanity articles. Perhaps not in this case? VG &#x260E; 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- although I had never heard of Elonka before, the references cited in the article are sufficient to convince me she meets notability requirements. If she doesn't, I can think of a few hundred articles that deserve deletion on the same grounds. The fact that this has been up to AfD before, survived, then got nominated again also doesn't sit well with me -- if a community consensus has been reached, why beat a dead horse? And to the people trying to accuse every editor here of favoritism because the subject happens to be a Wikipedia editor/admin/whatever...what happened to assuming good faith? -Stian (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with many of the editors posting above - the article complies with the General Notability Guideline. Also, recent editing by VG and SA has largely resolved the problems relating to neutrality. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2008 (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.