Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Rundkvist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 wub "?!" 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Rundkvist

Martin_Rundkvist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Puff piece about the blogger/archaeologist nominate for deletion - skeptic17

  • Comment: May I ask what grounds the nom is proffering for deletion?  RGTraynor  20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm guessing the reason to be doesn't meet notability requirements. It does seem to be a bio that doesn't show the subjects notability. I'll wait until the nom responds though before contributing a "vote". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to politely object to the characterisation of the entry as a 'puff-piece'. I also added translations of the SwedishWiki's Hans Hildebrand, Lars Larsson and Jan Peder Lamm entries on the same day because of their connections with Fornvännen, a major European archaeological journal. Alun Salt (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are basing your claims for notability upon a publication called Fornvännen, an extremely obscure journal with the English title of Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research, that has an impact factor of 0 for the English speaking world. That is why this entry is puffery. skeptic17 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.127.252 (talk)
  • Delete: Not notable per the general inclusion guidelines of WP:BIO. Closest specific criteria for the subject's assertion to notability would be from WP:PROF, but the subject is young and has insufficient publications, except for obscure Swedish publications, to provide a suitably large body of work for notability. This is pretty much an obvious case of puffery, he is but a blogger with a Ph.D., the only references I came across were self-referential links to his blog. I think it's too early in his career for him to qualify for notability. skeptic17 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Skeptic17 is mistaken on some issues. The recent ERIH assessment marked Fornvännen as a category B journal, which from this British Academy report is given to international publications with a good reputation among researchers of the field in different countries. Impact Factor isn't used in the Humanities in Europe, but I'd be surprised if it was zero, as I've seen papers from Fornvännen cited in journals like Antiquity and the Cambridge Archaeological journal. A source for that would be helpful for my own work if (s)he can point me in the right direction. Nonetheless I think the description of Fornvännen as extremely obscure makes no sense from an archaeological perpective. This doesn't necessarily make the editors notable, but additionally Rundkvist is the Scandinavian correspondent for Antiquity. Further, Skeptic17 is in error in claiming Rundkvist has only published in Swedish journals. That's not grounds for notability as many archaeologists don't publish in Swedish journals, but it does suggest that Skeptic17 may wish to search a little harder for references when proposing a delete.

      Similarly I'm surprised that Skeptic17 only found self-referential links to his weblog. A quick look at Technorati gives an authority of 284. A quick search on Google would also show that the links are not only self-referential. I'm very wary of saying that makes him notable. A better claim for notability for the weblog would be the academics who comment there, but even that would be weak. There are so few blogging archaeologists that it's a small community.

      Again I would like to politely object to the term 'puffery' which, where I live, carries negative connotations. Repeating the claim could lead to enthusiasm being mistaken for incivilty. I could have been in error in adding the editors of Fornvännen to Wikipedia, but I did it because I thought these entries would improve Wikipedia, not to pander to the egos of the archaeologists named. I accept it may be insufficiently notable to be an editor of one international publication and a correspondent for another. That's not sarcasm, there are thousands of academic journals. Personally I think if they're on the ERIH list they're notable, but that's just my opinion. However, I don't think that taking a personal tone is helpful.

      On the plus side I've just found out as I'm an 'award-winning' academic as I'm notable. I'm not saying which award though and if anybody puts up a Wikipedia entry on me I'll be putting it up for a speedy delete :) Alun Salt (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Still puffery in my books. According to Wikipedia guidelines notability is not something that is supposed to change, invoking technorati is pretty much irrational since it's in a continual state of flux. What is it exactly I'm mistaken about? Lets be clear: being an editor of a Journal does not make one notable, especially if barely no one has heard of does not make for notability. Nor having a blog makes for notability, I appreciate Alunsalt that you want to improve Wikipedia but the issue here is pretty clear. Please address what makes him notable directly if there isn't anything to add it's a pretty straightforward delete. Skeptic17 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, to make it clear your errors are:
  • Stating Fornvännen is a journal "barely no one has heard of". I've given you citations showing that not only have people heard of it, but that it's a major journal.
  • Stating he is 'but a blogger' when he is also correspondent for Antiquity, which from a European perspective is the top archaeological journal in the world.
  • Stating the only links to his site are 'self-referential', when I given evidence that other people are linking to his site.
Basically it looks like you've put up an article for deletion based on zero research and incorrect assertions.
Additionally
  • Stating that technorati invokes notability is a misrepresentation of my views.
    When I said "I'm very wary of saying that makes him notable." What I meant was I thought that would be a bad idea. If you read further you might have also seen that the size of the archaeoblogging community being what it is, it would be hard for anyone to claim notability. What it does do is show you are wrong about the links being self-referential, unless you're stating Rundkvist has hundreds of blogging aliases.
I'll give reasons for keeping the article in my vote. I'm not sure why you find this article so offensive you have to be uncivil. Alun Salt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Martin Rundkvist has edited books on Scandinavian archaeology and numerous academic articles. It would now be difficult to write on 1st Millennium BC burials in Scandinavia without referring to his work. Additionally his roles with Fornvännen and Antiquity make him a prominent member of the Scandinavian archaeological community. This is relevant in the English language version of Wikipedia as while Scandinavian archaeology may not be of interest to the average American, English is an international language used across Europe. The entries on Rundkvist as well as Lars Larsson and Jan Peder Lamm could be useful for students in nations where the Scandinavian past is more relevant. I don't see how deletion will improve matters,

    ..but alas my biggest reason for voting keep now is that when someone demonstrably ignorant of Scandinavian archaeology signs up and with his first edit tries pushing through a speedy delete of a 'blogger', doesn't notify the original author of the entry and then is deliberately offensive, I can't help wondering if there's some other reason why the entry should be deleted. I'll change this to delete if Skeptic17 can provide sources for his assertions like the zero impact factor. Alun Salt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete taking into account DGG's opinion. Alun Salt (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep WP:BIAS is certainly in play here. A co-editor of a journal that Wikipedia describes as one of the "leading scholarly journals" in its field does make a claim of notability, if a weak one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is unbelievable but I just noticed that user Mrund (talk) inserted "leading" into the following sentence on the wiki page for Fornvännen, ("Fornvännen is a leading Swedish scholarly journal in the fields of archaeology and Medieval art.") Who is user Mrund (talk) none other than Martin Rundkvist himself. As I stated initially puffery, and clearly an unethical person to boot!Skeptic17 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite apart from the issue of whether anyone might want to read about me in Wikipedia, let me point something out about the journal in question. It's been issued regularly several times a year for over a century and is taken by hundreds of research libraries worldwide. Some might argue that it is not the leading journal in its field. But I would be very surprised to hear anyone in Scandy archaeology deny that it is a leading journal. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete; sorry Martin, no matter what Skeptic17 says, if DGG doesn't think you're notable as a scholar, you're just not notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all works essentially uncited, according to Google Scholar. The titles make plain the extremely specialized nature of the books. The coeditorship of the journal (one of a small editorial board, not editor in chief) is not enough by itself, even if it were a major journal, not merely the journal of Sweden's Archeological society. . I removed the puffery mentioned in the previous comment from the article on the journal, there being no evidence for such a ranking on an international basis. DGG (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps Fornvännen should be edited to reflect the real value of the journal then, if it's not a major journal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done this. A bit of a Walled Garden. DGG (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This Martin Rundkvist hasn't been around to be notable yet. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:PROF by a wide margin (per DGG), and WP:BIO by even more. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have an opinion about this article, but am I the only one that finds it odd that Skeptic17 sails in and the first thing he/she does is to nominate this article for deletion? All edits from that account are in connection to this article and the deletion discussion. Is that really how these things are meant to work? --RE (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
it sometimes does happen that someone who has been browsing as a user sees an article they think is uncalled for , and gets a username in order to nominate it for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (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.