Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 23 July 2006

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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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. — RevRagnarok 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 dreadful vanity great-great-great-grandmother Polish playwright, voice talent etc. Neutral Dlyons493 Talk 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 Misplaced Pages article as self-promotion, trust me, my Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (I think I'm at around 6,500 edits at this point ), my own Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages), 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 Misplaced Pages bio (gee, I must have been falling down on the job in terms of using my Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online It will not be 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)
• 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)