Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Rönnbäck

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. For failure to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG criteria — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [1] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you follow the connected Wikidata item (which was available at the time of your comment), you will see that you are confusing Q125678771 Lars Rönnbäck (data architect) with Q76738550 Lars Rönnbäck (Swedish neuroscientist). Sauer202 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No. I pointed out that there is a neuroscientist with the same name, and that it probably was the neuroscientist that recieved the award. That is the opposite of confusing them, so your patronizing is uncalled-for. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[2] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.