| Revision as of 02:15, 23 July 2006 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits →[]: keep, just barely← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:25, 23 July 2006 edit undoDlyons493 (talk | contribs)9,985 edits →[]: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Barely on the edge of ] but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of ] violations. — <span style="text-decoration: none;">] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - Barely on the edge of ] but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of ] violations. — <span style="text-decoration: none;">] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 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 ] 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). ++]: ]/] 02:15, 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 ] 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). ++]: ]/] 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' dreadful vanity ''great-great-great-grandmother Polish playwright'', ''voice talent '' etc. ] ] 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:25, 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
- 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. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)