Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Rundkvist (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't see how this person meets WP:NPROF – he seems to be an associate professor with an h-index of about 8 or 9. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you read the WP:NPROF criteria down to the bottom? Certainly, it seems unlikely that you read the deletion review, or even took a look at the edit history. Had you done so, you would have seen that at least three people (,, and ) found that the subject meets the eighth criterion, "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."


 * Speaking of overlooked criteria, "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" (per AfD guidelines). —Usernameunique (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are reading more into my DRV comment than you should. I looked at a 12-year old AfD result, a claim that the subject has done more since then, and treated it as a WP:REFUND request.  I also pointed out that the onus was on your to make sure it was up to snuff before moving it back to mainspace.  That's a long way from my finding that the subject met any particular criteron.  I am neutral on whether he's notable or not -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: (WP:NPP reviewer here...) Notability under NACADEMIC is stronger than other SNGs, which may require GNG to also be demonstrated, or where it is presumed but rebuttable. NACADEMIC states: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable... For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source". The subject meets WP:NACADEMIC#8 as the journal he edited for years appears to be internationally notable, but might not meet any of the others. Given he was editor for years, I don't believe that this is a corner case where IAR should be applied to an individual article. Nor do I believe that deficient SNGs should be nullified through ad-hoc AFDs, which leads to inconsistent treatment of similar articles depending on who turns up. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck. 's identification of an editor-in-chief above him means NACADEMIC#8 ("head or chief editor") is not met. Thanks and apologies. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 20:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rundkvist was the managing editor, not editor-in-chief, of Fornvännen. I don't think that meets the letter or spirit of WP:PROF: the idea is that editor-in-chief is a prestigious position and therefore a rough indicator of notability as an academic. Managing editor is more of a practical role and, by Rundkvist's own account, he got it when he was still very junior. Aside from that I'm not sure about notability. He has a well-known, long-running blog that might have generated some media coverage over the years (perhaps in Swedish if not English). There might also be reviews of his books that would pass WP:NAUTHOR/WP:GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Over the last few days I've compiled secondary sources and reviews, and significantly expanded the article. Based on what's there, I think there's a strong argument in favor of notability. The best question probably is what influence Rundkvist and his work have had, and the answer seems to be "decent." A conservative count of his publications includes 7 books; combine the 3 volumes of Barshalder, which appear to represent the definitive publication on an important Iron Age cemetery, and those alone have nearly 100 identified citations. There are a substantial number of reviews in significant journals—such as Antiquity, the European Journal of Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, and Fornvännen—and in at least five languages: English, Danish, Finnish, German, and Spanish. There are undoubtedly more (especially in Swedish), and given the language barrier, perhaps many more.


 * More generally, Rundkvist is clearly a "known" presence in his field; there's the long-running blog, of course, and even the Curators of Sweden gig. makes a good point in differentiating between editor-in-chief and managing editor, which disqualifies the eighth NPROF criterion as an automatic bestower of notability. But being the managing editor of a leading journal in one's field for two decades indicates that that person is deeply involved, and known to others, in that field—in short, it ain't nothing.


 * The nominator pointed to the h-index. Though this passing comment overlooked the warning that this is "of limited usefulness," "should be approached with caution," and is "discipline-dependent," there's some utility in this metric, placed in context. Scandinavian archaeology is hardly a fashionable field; fewer people means fewer articles, fewer articles means fewer citations, and fewer citations means a lower h-index. As Rundkvist indicated on his article's talk page, the chair of archaeology at the University of Stockholm has an h-index of 25, and the editor-in-chief of Fornvännen has one of 9. Against that backdrop, 9 looks perfectly respectable. And frankly, with 130 citations over the last five years, it's pretty obvious that it's going to go up.


 * To be sure, there are clearer cases for notability. But I don't think this one is that tenuous, and I think there's a reason that even a decade ago, the article (including its Swedish counterpart) survived two of three rounds at AfD: in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Hopefully this time will put it to rest. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not our job to point that out. Someone else, in a reliable source, needs to say he is important. Did he win any awards in the field? Where are interviews with him? Or fellow scholars analysis of his life and achievements in form of academic articles about his influence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , in terms of awards, there's last year's Academy's Antiquary Award in Silver from the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. And you may have missed the interviews: see references 10 & 20. Rundkvist is not deep enough into his career that a Festschrift or similar work would exist, but the dozen reviews in the article clearly show the influence of his works. And if you're still uncomfortable with Rundqvist's compatibility with NPROF, it's worth noting, as did above, that "Notability under NACADEMIC is stronger than other SNGs." Rundkvist arguably (also) meets the notability standards for authors, as he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." —Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pings, but I just cannot find enough to warrant him passing. I concur with David below that he fails NAUTHOR (and NPROF), and there is nothing else for NBIO. The award is good, but seems rather minor, through I'd be open to hearing more about it. Still, as an academic myself, I'd think that one would need several minor awards like this to qualify. But I'd not be opposed to revising NPROF to make it more inclusive. Sigh. If only he played a bit of a sport, sigh, kicked the ball a few times, he would be notable with no problems. Sigh again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. It pains me to vote delete, as I think he is at least as notable as most WP:SPORTBIO or such. But unless we can change WP:NPROF to be more inclusive, I don't see what makes him notable. No awards, no in-depth coverage of his achievements, etc. In the end, "he is just doing his job". And not being a sportsman or a celebrity, there is no coverage of that, sadly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found only one review of his Barshalder work at . That isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and neither is his citation record on Google Scholar nor his service as managing editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF but I do concur with on this and want to add that the person is at least notable than many biography stubs we have.  KartikeyaS  (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, He was during 3 years the chairman of the Swedish sceptical movement, Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning, VOF, which also is a great reason why he got his article on svwp. The deletion discussions on svwp has much been because people not liking the VOF tried to get the chairmans article deleted, or changed. (Not saying it is the same reason here on enwp! Just meaning that the deletion discussions on svwp should not affect this version). Adville (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. His citations are nowhere close to WP:NPROF, and managing editor isn't chief editor.  We rarely keep articles on associate professors, and I don't see anything exceptional here.  I don't see WP:NAUTHOR per prior comments.  It's possible that there is GNG coverage of his work for the skeptics society, but I didn't find it, and it isn't in the article.  The article comes across as rather autobiographical (leaning as it does on the subject's blog and similar), and if the subject later becomes notable, then the current article would need to anyway be extensively rewritten. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2020 (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.