Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasiliy Krivtsov


 * 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 redirect to Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide. Consensus was that the subject right now fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.

There also exists consensus that Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide is notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Vasiliy Krivtsov

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly-sourced stub on a non-notable person (academic? business exec? not sure which). Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is for a notable person in the field of Reliability Engineering. Wikipedia is lacking articles about reliability topics and notable contributors to the field. I have added reliable sources after your previous flag. I will be working on improving this article as well as other articles for major contributors in the reliability field. -- User:Sarouk7 (talk)


 * comment simply because you feel that a field is not well represented in Wikipedia does not mean that it is a good idea to add people that may not be notable. His GS lists 1500 citations and a h index of 12 which is pretty low to pass WP:NPROF and clearly his movie roles are too minor to pass notability. Also testifying in front of congress, especially simply representing your company, will not pass  WP:GNG.  please come up with a more substantial argument based on WP:GNG and WP:NPROF or I fear the article will get deleted. --hroest 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you move the page to draft rather than deleting it as I am working on the reference of this page? user:Sarouk7 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's got 264 citations total and an h-index of 9 on Scopus, unless there's something qualifying him for GNG he does not meet our notability standards. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the comments above, but I strongly disagree. The field of reliability is fairly new and the citation total and h-index need to be considered accordingly. How many universities in the USA offer a graduate degree in Reliability? THREE; UMD, UTK, and UCLA. The former one started by a professor from UMD anyway. Vasiliy got 1564 citation, but he is not totally academic, he works in the field, and as a reliability professional, I found his work in the statistical estimation procedures of the Generalized Renewal Process to be qualifying him for GNG. I have a goal and a mission to enhance the content of the reliability engineering on Wikipedia, which includes adding missing topics that don't exist (Failure Mode Conservation Principle, Generalized Renewal Pnon-parametric estimates), and introduce some of the contributors to the modern Reliability Engineering Vasiliy Krivstov, Wayne B. Nelson, Ali Moslih. Please consider not deleting the page.  -- User:Sarouk7 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sarouk7, how about writing some articles on Enrico Zio, or David Coit, or Bojan Cukic, or Weichang Yeh? They are all highly cited (very surprised Zio doesn't have a page yet!) and publish in reliability engineering. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fix ping: User:Sarouk7 JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:JoelleJay, All great names, Enrico Zio has one of my favorite articles to model plant availability using Monte Carlo. I haven't edited on Wikipedia in almost 9 years, and I am just surprised by the resistance I am getting for that article. The reason I picked Vasiliy's page to be my first is my admiration of his accomplishments especially in the Firestone and Ford tire controversy. I read about his approach in making Firestone admit their manufacturing flows and making them recall 23 million tires in his book Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis. User:JoelleJay, are you a reliability professional?. -- User:Sarouk7 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sarouk7 He can easily be notable in the field, and I have no doubt he is well-respected, but for the purposes of meeting Wikipedia's conception of academic notability his impact needs to be demonstrated with extremely high citations in his discipline, distinguished/named professorships, prestigious awards, or through meeting one of the other select criteria outlined in the above link. I do see his book has received a good number of citations (and it isn't indexed in Scopus or mathscinet, so it didn't factor into my previous comment), but he would need several such publications to verify his influence is well above that of the average professor in his field. I'm not in reliability engineering (although I have weak familiarity with bathtub models/failure prediction); I came across those names while assessing coauthor citation metrics of another subject who also unfortunately didn't have the requisite sourcing for WP. I'll ping, who seems to have background in this topic and would have more insight on any particular achievements in it that might confer notability outside of citations. Best, JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:JoelleJay, thank you for bringing other Wikipedians who are experts in the subject. since your delete vote, the page went through some edits, would you be able to re-review it? --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarouk, I'm still a little concerned that the book isn't attributable solely to him (his coauthor Modarres has much higher citation metrics (2136 total citations, h-index of 23), so it's hard to determine his contributions to it. Something I think the experienced mathematicians pinged ( and ) could help with is differentiating his impact in math (generally very low citations, but applied math/stats will be higher) from that in engineering (generally higher). For example, his citation metrics compared to those of his coauthors* aren't especially impressive, but if his notability is derived more from the low-citation field it's likely his incidental coauthorship with people from a high-citation field would obscure it, especially since low-citation fields are also low-collaboration. On the other hand, I only found 2 documents on mathscinet, so it's hard to argue in favor of that last point.

Total citations: average: 2842, median: 763, Krivtsov: 742. h-index: avg: 19, med: 13, K: 10. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 285, med: 166, K: 478 (generally Google Scholar citations are about 1/2 that of Scopus, so the book probably has around this many academic citations). 2nd: avg: 133, med: 68, K: 68. 3rd: avg: 114, med: 64, K: 52. 4th: avg: 98, med: 31, K: 31. 5th: avg: 76, med: 19, K: 26. There are many caveats to this analysis, the biggest being how small the sample size is; it's also greatly skewed by Saralees Nadarajah and Ilya Kolmanovsky, who seem to publish a lot in applied math/stats/engineering topics outside of reliability analysis and so might not be appropriate to compare. The numbers are also limited to documents indexed by Scopus, which normally don't include books -- I manually added 478 citations to Krivtsov, Kaminskiy, and Modarres and recalculated their h-indices, but it's likely his other coauthors also have unindexed publications that would raise the averages/medians.


 * JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User:JoelleJay, I totally understand where you coming from, based on all the references you provided above, it makes sense. However, what I am emphasizing here is that Krivtsov is not solely academic like Modarras, he is academic but also a practitioner and consultant in the field. His contribution to the book was significantly obvious in chapters 4, 5, and 7, where the repairable systems were discussed using his unique approach of utilizing the Monte Carlo method to solve a model that was impossible to be solved by any means previous to that. In other chapters, his contributions were also noted in the practical examples after most of the topics which were are related to assembly line's conveyor failures, Data censoring from car failure databases, and automotive tire reliability. All those practical examples, I know for fact, are contributed by him, given his work at Ford Motor Company.
 * My point here is that citation can't really reflect his notability, but the weight of his contribution can be sensed in what he has accomplished in the field. I personally haven't had any means of estimating the effect of upgrading components in repairable systems until I read his paper | G1-Renewal Process as Repairable System Model. If you also look at Kaminskiy's citation it would be within the same ballpark given that Kaminskiy is also a practitioner not solely academic. --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to make even the most obvious connection without explicit sourcing making that connection -- otherwise it is considered OR. This unfortunately means practitioners/consultants who may be very well-known and sought-after in a field are generally not considered notable by Wikipedia since it's less likely they'll have impactful academic citations or GNG-meeting coverage. The one thing I can think of that might help here is if we can demonstrate Krivtsov's academic publications have made their way into very widely-used manuals in the industry. I don't know if Google Scholar indexes such things, or if manuals even have reference sections, but if a technique that can be directly and unambiguously attributed to him is being implemented on a massive scale that could be an avenue to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:JoelleJay, To this point — Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. Note the SAS-JMP and Reliasoft are the industry-standard software in reliability engineering, each having tens of thousands of licenses. --Sarouk7 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep, mostly for the book. The book has 950+ citations on GS, it also has at least a couple of reviews .  Very weak, because there's not so much else, and it borders on a WP:BLP1E; I think there's just enough in the way of other citations to save it.  (I'm most impressed by the most impactful work in assessing WP:NPROF C1.)  The primary-sourced stuff and CV-like list of pubs should be trimmed, but it's not looking so bad.  Can any disinterested editors see the WSJ article?  Thanks  for the ping.   might also be interested in this one, and I think has about as much expertise as me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Russ Woodroofe, thank you for your feedback, on the topic of WP:NPROF His paper | G1-Renewal Process as Repairable System Model, in my opinion, is a great approach in modeling repairable systems with “Better-than-new” restoration condition. That model is popularly used in the field, particularly, in the repairable system with upgraded components. Furthermore, this model was impossible to solve by any means even using La-Place transformation, but Krivstov’s work provided a possible solution throughout three different papers.
 * *A Monte Carlo Approach to Repairable System Reliability Analysis, 1998
 * *Approximate Solution to G-Renewal Equation with Underlying Weibull Distribution, 2012
 * *Estimation of G-Renewal Process Parameters as an Ill-Posed Inverse Problem, 2013
 * --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While I find plausible that the paper you mention is good work, that evaluation probably falls under WP:OR. I trimmed the list of papers in the article down to the most highly cited.  So far, the work you mention doesn't seem to have had so much of an impact, at least as measured by citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for refining the page to reflect the most credible papers. --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * delete / redirect to book, the book would fall under WP:BLP1E and the credit of the book has to be divided between three co-authors the papers listed above have low citations, thus making him fail WP:NPROF. This is pretty much confirmed by the analysis of JoelleJay, he is an average professor for his field. --hroest 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC) PS: added support to redirect to book. --hroest 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment that there seems to be an emerging consensus that the book is notable, although the author may or may not be. Thus, a sensible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a stub about the book.  " is a textbook on techniques for analysis of reliability and risk," could suffice for the text of such a stub. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this would be reasonable. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Russ Woodroofe, JoelleJay, I don't know the process of re-directing the page into a stub about the book. Can you assist with that? --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will likely do so; otherwise, I'll do it after the AfD closes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Clarification First of all, thanks to all the Wikipedians who are taking the time to elaborate, I have always believed people like us who make Wikipedia great. I want to elaborate on a point that was brought up by many The citations. Please note that I created this page for Krivtsov for his contributions to the reliability engineering field, however, as a professor, in my opinion, Krivtsov is more than an average professor, which could be confirmed by his student's reviews. I am emphasizing his work and contribution in the field, which I have benefited from personally. That makes him more than an average professor in the field, and also higher than an average practitioner as well. His reliability models were utilized to support some serious decision-making (e.g. Firestone) at Ford. Some of his work is featured on Ford Media Site.  Regarding citations, I would like to allude that, full-time professors generate lots of citations through their numerous graduate students, so I'm not sure how fair it is to compare a "playing coach" like Prof. Krivtsov with full-time academics. Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. --Sarouk7 (talk) --Sarouk7 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and/or redirect to book. The book appears to be notable. But he's only one of three authors and it's the only thing that stands out to distinguish him for scholarly research. I don't think one book (unless maybe one that is really famous outside its own topic and not merely notable) can be enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. That leaves only WP:GNG-based notability for his work at Ford, and I don't really see the sourcing for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * David Eppstein, Ford is a private company, so the only publicly available sourcing that demonstrates Krivtsov work is:
 * WSJ article and RESS paper — both referencing his work on the Ford-Firestone Controversy
 * Ford Media Site that mentions one of his achievements
 * ASME Congressional Briefing, in which he represented Ford.
 * The methodology of his approach in solving the controversy is documented in his book Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis Chapter 7.1.6.1
 * Another possible venue to notability, according to User:JoelleJay, might be if "Krivtsov's academic publications have made their way into very widely-used manuals in the industry and got implemented on a massive scale". To that point — Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. SAS-JMP and Reliasoft are the industry-standard software in reliability engineering, each having tens of thousands of licenses. --Sarouk7 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * adding one algorithm to a large software package, which isnt even notable by itself, does not make him notable. Many of the articles you listed are from his employers website and are thus not independent and him acting as a spokesperson/representing his employer also generally does not count towards notability. I am sorry, in my view there is just too little here for notability. --hroest 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hroest, With all due respect, but SAS - JMP is one of the most notable software packages in the field of reliability, and having an algorithm-based one's dissertation is a great deal in the field. --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, we do have an article on JMP (statistical software), but again the main creator of the software [[John Sall] is probably notable, but not each engineer or person who had their algorithm implemented. This page is one documenation page of JMP and the algorithm is part (a) of one paragraph, so maybe 5% of that page and that one documentation page itself describes only a small subset of the capabilities of JMP. So the contribution of the algorithm to JMP is very likely to be < 1% of the whole product. --[[user:Hannes Röst|hroest]] 11:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hroest, I am not sure how you arrived at <1%, but, regardless, can we look at statistics from another perspective? Namely, what percent of Krivtsov's peers in industry/academia have their algorithm selected for a massive-scale implementation in Industry-Standard Software?  My guess is that no more than 10%... and Krivtsov happens to be one of them. --Sarouk7 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect, weakly. (Struck earlier !vote.)  I'm convinced by the argument that the subject is overshadowed on the book by better-known coauthors, and don't see any need to relist the discussion or otherwise drag this out.  If he gets elected as IEEE fellow or similar, then we can consider an article then.  Meanwhile, I'll go make a stub on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Textbook stub at Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide. Others having more experience with articles on books should feel free to tweak. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2021 (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.