Deletion of Elonka Dunin (3rd nomination)

Comment: per VasileGaburici, meets  in my book
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: in a few , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: disagree with nominator.  Subject is definitely notable enough for inclusion per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: subject is notable and satisfies  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 , , and . The context of this person's notability is in connection to amateur cryptography and nothing more
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:V)

Comment: meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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 , , and , but sufficient press coverage guarantees inclusion via . Like it or not, Dunin is involved in some endeavors that captured the public imagination, which in turn generated press coverage, which suffices for . 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. http://elonka.com/mirrors/STL/sights.html "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 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE5DA153FF931A15757C0A9609C8B63 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  is satisfied
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:ATHLETE||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: references in article establish notability straightforwardly per .  No reason to make a naval-gasing exception to the usual rule here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: per  and ; share concerns with editor above about the motivations of this nomination but will  for now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:AGF)