Deletion of Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination)

Comment: per above comments, figure meets  notability criteria guideline and the nomination for deletion shows poor form
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Seems to pass bio guidelines.  I agree that  violations should be watched for, but I don't see any here as of now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)

Comment: She seems to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This notable person meets and exceeds  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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack by any interpretation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

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  on anyone, that may not be a good place to go
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: seems to meet  per above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)