Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ib Holm Sørensen


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that Sørensen does not meet NPROF. I don't see enough of a consensus to spring for a merge or redirect. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ib Holm Sørensen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable for an academic, was only a Information Systems Developer according to his personal website. Reference 2 made no references to where he was originally from and the date he started his academic career. Reference 3 is dead, and getting a PhD is not notable enough. Reference 5 has no mentions of his name, furthermore, B-Core Limited on Google doesn't show anything related. Fails WP:GNG Hadal1337 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC) "* The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Denmark,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A reluctant vote, his body of contributions at ResearchGate is a pointer to a role of some significance in the world of software and computer science. However, we have WP:GNG and he sadly doesn't pass muster. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – I have made a start at addressing the issues, with references. More work is needed, which I will do when I can. WP:PROF applies to some degree here, but this person spanned academia and industry, and as such is one of those exceptional cases. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – I think there is enough there now with his contribution to a Queen's Award for Technological Achievement with IBM, leadership of the BP Research group, and foundation of the B-Core (UK) company, not to mention his leading contribution to B-Method tool support. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is an exceptional case. He seems to have contributed to some extent on formal methods, but at the end of the day, his most cited paper on Scholar is cited 215 times, and other articles do not exceed 35 citations. Not sure how "selected publications" will benefit WP:GNG.
 * Note: For information, his most cited co-authored book Specification Case Studies has 855 citations and his most cited co-authored journal article Laws of programming has 544 citations on Google Scholar. You have to be a bit careful when using Google Scholar for searching. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - Regarding the Queen's Award for Technological Achievement with IBM, except from the book (which I cannot find any copies online), there is no other sources backing this.
 * - No sources (primary or secondary) regarding the "leadership of the BP Research group".
 * - Please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong, but I am unable to find any secondary source online regarding B-Core (UK) Limited. The primary source you used can be created by anyone, and that there is no further information on his LinkedIn page that shows he is the Ib Holm Sørensen in this article. Hadal1337 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added better independent references for all these aspects. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, or possibly redirect to B-Method.  As far as WP:NPROF goes, I'm seeing one moderately highly cited paper, developing the B-Method theory.  I don't think it's nearly enough for NPROF C1.  There are no signs of the other NPROF criteria, nor of other notability.  Redirect to B-Method would be possible, if so, it would be good to source the statement in that article that Sørensen developed the B-Toolkit. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: For information and correction, as also noted above, his most cited book Specification Case Studies has 855 citations and his most cited journal article Laws of programming has 544 citations on Google Scholar. There are also additional independent references now added too, including for the B-Toolkit (see above). —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I had missed Laws of Programming. This moderately highly cited and also highly coauthored (8 coauthors not including the subject) contributes slightly, but I don't think it brings the subject to a pass of WP:NPROF C1.  The sourcing that I see for his connection with the redirect target appears to be primary at best, and pretty weak.  (The B-Toolkit page link in the article, for example, doesn't even mention Sørensen!) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have improved the references linking Ib Sørensen with B-Core and the development of B-Toolkit. The highly cited Specification Case Studies is also seminal for the use of the Z notation. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: note from WP:PROF:
 * Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications."


 * I believe this applies in this case, especially since this person straddled academia and industry, creating links between the two, something not done by many academics. This person was definitely an above-average academic in terms of his impact. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note for information: I do not believe that WP:BEFORE was followed in this case. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE was followed. WP:DEL-REASON is 8; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hadal1337 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I cannot see how WP:BEFORE C.3 was covered (e.g., by adding a tag or discussing in the talk page first). —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One usually complains about WP:BEFORE when an AfD discussion ends in a speedy keep. This is nowhere near that.  If the subject has had so much impact, why is that not reflected in reliable sources or in citations?  Meanwhile, you might wish to read WP:BLUDGEON, and consider whether any of the advice therein might apply. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. The sourcing is too thin to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The additions to the page (mentioned above) and the explanation of the background of this article's target has strengthened the case considerably. This person indeed worked both in academe and industry, and actually seemed to prefer the latter. His influence was very great, not only in the projects he initiated and/or managed, but in the people he influenced and taught. He did not, however, have much interest in the conventional academic activities of submitting/being reviewed/revising papers or books, or applying for promotion. (At that time, in Oxford, the Programming Research Group comprised just one professor (Hoare): everyone else was simply a Lecturer.) Thus he does fall perhaps outside the guidelines that Wikipedia applies to prevent its being abused by bogus articles. But this person is by no means bogus; his influence was large, and pervasive (especially in the UK), and applied mainly by personal contact and by negotiating and managing contracts with industry. It is unfortunate of course that many of the publications do not mention the full membership of the group(s) he led, or its leader; but many of those groups' members are (still) easy to find (and I was one). The only question would be whether they would want to participate in this discussion.nunibad (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC) — nunibad (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nunibad, this is not a policy based rationale. We have guidelines for determining what content gets included on wikipedia which you can read at Notability (or the subject specific guidelines of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO). The issue here is one of lack of sources to meet the guideline at WP:SIGCOV. While your personal assessment of Sørensen may be accurate, for wikipedia's purposes we require independent secondary and tertiary sources that address the subject "directly and in-detail" to verify the notability of subjects. In this case, we simply do mot have published independent sources which are in-depth about Sørensen . Nor do we have published sources verifying the claims you made about Sørensen and his career in your keep argument. Further, given your stated connection to the subject, you should read the policy WP:Conflict of Interest, because you have just disclosed a COI.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks 4meter4 for the advice! I am indeed unfamiliar with the process. Nunibad (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a case being made here for notability under NPROF, but reluctantly, I can't support it. According to gscholar, he has high citations for one paper, but the rest fall off rapidly leaving him with an h-index of only four – far too small for an NPROF case.  There is far to little in sources to make a case for him as a BIO article.  His lasting legacy is claimed to be in connection with Z notation and B method.  However, this paper, which discusses this topic, paints a rather lesser role for Sørensen.  It gives the inventor of the Z method as Abrial without mentioning the work of Sørensen at all, and gives Sørensen only as a collaborator of Abrial in the development of the B method.  The rest of the article is concerned with posts that Sørensen held.  No post automatically leads to notability on Wikipedia.  Perhaps it should, but as guidelines stand, that is just him doing is job and does not amount to notability unless there are sources discussing his career in depth. SpinningSpark 19:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.