Martin Rundkvist – Userfied. Now at User:Usernameunique/Martin Rundkvist. Please note, this is not a guarantee that somebody can't bring this back to AfD later, so please ensure it meets WP:PROF before moving back to userspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Martin Rundkvist (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Perhaps Martin Rundkvist was not notable a decade ago, when his page was deleted. But if it was "too early in his career for him to qualify for notability," as was suggested then, this is no longer the case. He has a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates—some 300 in total, approximately half of which have come in the last five years. And as a 20-year Managing Editor of Fornvännen (cite), he has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area. Times change, and it is time for the page to be undeleted. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Assuming the view that he has become more notable since the deletion in 2008 I believe it would make more sense to simply create a new article from scratch since I don’t see why need to restore the decades old article history.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. I was the closer of the AfD way back in 2008, and agree with Usernameunique that things have changed a lot. Being editor of the journal means he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), this wasn't a criterion at the time of the previous discussion [1]. A quick search of Google News turned up several appearances of his work in the media too. (It doesn't contribute to notability, but I'll also note there's an article on Swedish Wikipedia which could help provide some content for a recreation). the wub "?!" 08:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's been twelve years, if he's notable now no reason not to recreate it. Is this salted at all? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation, for the reasons explained above. There's nothing in the deleted version that's objectionable, so Usernameunique, if you want, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace where you can bring it up to WP:PROF standards and move it back to mainspace when you're ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks all. RoySmith, that sounds good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Martin Rundkvist – Userfied. Now at User:Usernameunique/Martin Rundkvist. Please note, this is not a guarantee that somebody can't bring this back to AfD later, so please ensure it meets WP:PROF before moving back to userspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Perhaps Martin Rundkvist was not notable a decade ago, when his page was deleted. But if it was "too early in his career for him to qualify for notability," as was suggested then, this is no longer the case. He has a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates—some 300 in total, approximately half of which have come in the last five years. And as a 20-year Managing Editor of Fornvännen (cite), he has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area. Times change, and it is time for the page to be undeleted. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the view that he has become more notable since the deletion in 2008 I believe it would make more sense to simply create a new article from scratch since I don’t see why need to restore the decades old article history.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. I was the closer of the AfD way back in 2008, and agree with Usernameunique that things have changed a lot. Being editor of the journal means he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), this wasn't a criterion at the time of the previous discussion [1]. A quick search of Google News turned up several appearances of his work in the media too.

(It doesn't contribute to notability, but I'll also note there's an article on Swedish Wikipedia which could help provide some content for a recreation). the wub "?!" 08:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been twelve years, if he's notable now no reason not to recreate it. Is this salted at all? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, for the reasons explained above. There's nothing in the deleted version that's objectionable, so Usernameunique, if you want, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace where you can bring it up to WP:PROF standards and move it back to mainspace when you're ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. RoySmith, that sounds good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.