The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
*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. —
RevRagnarok
Talk
Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
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. Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
*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. —
RevRagnarok
Talk
Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
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. Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply