Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin

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. LFaraone 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I suspect vanity. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE ENTRY IS A STUB setting out a bibliography on the important subject of energetically modified cement. It pertains to a NOTED academic in the field of advanced material sciences, who was awarded the gold award by EUREKA. This is vandalism plain and simple. Jono2013 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would like to see a citation to support the Gold Medal from EUREKA. If Ronin's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" then he meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Also, if he "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", or "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I leaning toward 'keep' but I would like to see more evidence. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the external link and you can see the certificate for yourself. This was amply covered in previous discussions a week ago, on the main article page. Dr. Ronin meets so many of the criteria that is is so obvious that the nominator not only did not read the policy he espouses, but what's more, does not justify, nor seeks an explanation FIRST on either the talk page of the article or my talk page. Jono2013 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I was hoping for was a link hosted by Eureka, or a news item, not a file hosted by emccement.com. A PDF like this can easily be edited or modified; it is not proof by itself. I consider it a primary source, but WP:Secondary sources are needed here. Emccement.com is not an independent source—it is deeply involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Barney the barney barney (talk) not only has a history of not understanding fine distinctions, but moreover, nominating articles for deletion without discussing first. His type are a curse to wikipedia and serious scientific writing, and will lead to its demise in such areas. With respect to a page I have been working on for over a month (energetically modified cement) WITH the input of editors Wiki editors, he nevertheless nominated it without discussing first, which is clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There are many trolls on wiki and unfortunately they may stray into scientific subjects of which they have not the first base clue.

Just look at his talk page (if you can even bare to look at his user page image). A litany of self appointed judgments, not once seeking to discuss first. And I, as a 58 year old retired senior life sciences academic, am supposed to defend the entry of a noted academic, who has published even with the US National Academies, by virtue of an unsubstantiated nomination made by a user who flouts wiki policy and posts a deeply disrespectful picture of a woman on his user page? Shameful.

Tell me, when does this madness end? Sincerely and genuinely appalled, let alone aghast. Jono2013 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gscholar citations level fairly low for industrial and chemical engineering at 33, 28, 15, 13, 9, 9, 6 .... (h-index of 6), failing WP:PROF#C1. The EUREKA Gold medal is not a very well known or especially prestigious prize; we don't even have an article on it, so it does not go very far towards WP:PROF#C2. A cursory Gnews search on the link above does not produce significant coverage of the subject. I conclude that this is a worthy but not particularly notable industrial researcher. Ray^Talk 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't put it better than Ray. I can see no sign of passing WP:Prof, Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Vanity, even if someone else's. EEng (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [Clarifying rephrasing in light of misinterpetation:] Overenthused boosterism. EEng (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are not here to judge the "standing" of the subject. The question is, is this person of sufficent standing to merit an entry. This seems to be a very senior academic. The above allegations of vanity and "low level" are not helpful and may be offensive to the Professor. The academic is highly published and by the looks of it originated a term of art 20 years ago - or maybe I misunderstood. EUREKA is a highly credible organisation - an intergovernmental one at that. Although understanding EUREKA may be difficult, even for European editors, it has strong intergovernmental support. We can take the copy of the certificate at face value, albeit primary source. There may be difficulties obtaining secondary source verification - for example, EUREKA may not consider it a priority to list prize winners, and especially not just to satisfy a Wikipedian's zest for secondary sources. Indeed, anyone who goes so far as to include the link to EUREKA must be making an effort to substantiate it. For example, why would a senior academic risk "making it up"? Allegations that it may be a forgery are not constructive, an again may cause offence. Further, the academic has a listing at his accredited university. Again, I state we are not here to judge an academic subject's "merit". The comments by Ray seem to be unduly perjorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.3.149 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — 86.142.3.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"We are not here to judge the "standing" of the subject.", "Again, I state we are not here to judge an academic subject's "merit"." - Yes, we are, actually. People who do not meet the notability guidelines do not get Wikipedia articles. That's what this discussion was created to determine: Is the subject of this article notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? The guidelines are fairly simple, and discussions like these take place to give all interested Wikipedia editors a chance to express their opinion. Not all AFDs end with an article getting deleted. Many end with the article being improved by the discovery that takes place as a result of the AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course the standard caveats that notability and merit are not the same thing. But we certainly are here to judge notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Energetically modified cement per WP:BIO1E. That article appears likely to survive its own AfD, and any notability for Ronin (e.g. the Eureka medal) appears to be for this one thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support that option if nobody can show proof that Ronin's "research has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline", which I still think is a possibility. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the EUREKA Gold award, I searched through the group's website for the name "Ronin" and for various terms such as "modified cement" but I did not find any notice about Ronin receiving a Gold award. I entered the following search parameters in Google: "modified cement site:www.eurekanetwork.org/" and "Ronin site:www.eurekanetwork.org/" along with a few others. Nothing at all for Ronin on that website. Binksternet (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To David Eppstein AND Binksternet:

I have received an email from Professor Ronin yesterday, that yesterday morning he sent to the Wiki administrators regarding the attack on his character that Ronin perceives. Reading between the lines, I do not doubt Professor Ronin is not objecting to a discussion as to merit - rather, his email is clearly stating that he finds the allegations of "vanity" damaging to his "impeccable" (I quote from email) standing. The unsigned comment above was helpful as it has served as a marker to quell any further "opprobrium" by those who are representing Wikipedia, yet stray beyond the confines of what is acceptable by using terms which are possibly defamatory. I do not speak for Ronin. It is his business. Unlike all of us here, he does not have the protection of anonymity. It would have been perfectly acceptable for any "editor" to make the comments such as those immediately above. But in my view once an "editor" starts using highly weighted terms against an identified living person (e.g, accusing them of "vanity", then that is a different kettle of fish. This said, to make things clearer:

• Ronin is highly noted in his discipline.
• Ronin is the world leading expert on "energetically modified cement". I would wager that ask any academic who is operating in advanced material sciences pertaining to "cementitious materials" and the WILL know of EMC. Mreover, I wager, ask anyone of them, and they will say "Ronin". The words are, dare I say it, synonymous.
• Ronin derived the term "energetically Modified Cement" - which is still standing over 20 years later. The subject has been subject of independent research in universities as far afield as Illinois and China.
• Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology. Ronin is accredited there as the inventor.
• Ronin has even published a paper with the US National Academies. As stated above by unsigned comment, we are not here to judge whether an article has "standing" per se. The very fact that Ronin has published prolifically corroborates matters positively anyhow.
• The fact that Ronin's papers are co-authored by a variety of authors add credibility. For example, Elfgren is considered by many in the field to be a world leading authorities.
• LTU is one of the World's leading universities in the "material science" side of cement technologies. This is because of its extreme climate. It's importanc can be easily discerned having in mind that this year's Cambridge University "Future Infrastructure Forum" (FIF) comprised a lecture by Elfgren, despite the fact that FIF's aim is exclusively UK academics and industry. Moreover, the invites came personally from Campbell Middleton.
• You can read more about FIF here. Or, perhaps it is better to consider the PDF here. For example you will see the "real faces" behind it.
• Should you go to the Energetically modified cement entry, note the pictorial insert. I understand that "biomimetics" is the "cutting edge" focus of FIF. This would be borne out by Prof. Bob Larks presentation to FIF, here.
• Whence, I understand that Cambridge may wish to co-operate in partnership with Ronin/LTU/Elfgren regarding the biomimetics of Energetically Modified Cement, but I understand whether that is going to happen or not will depend largely on Ronin (note, not Elfgren).
• The EUREKA award is highly significant. I understand (but I cannot verify if for the purposes of the article) that it was presented by the then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
• It's quite clear EUREKA is "heavy weight". It was formed by then French President and the then German Chancellor in 1985. You can read more about it here: EUREKA 20TH ANNIVERSARY REPORT – Two decades of support for European innovation.

You'll understand that I have shared some intimate details here, which I trust will not be "abused". I have no connection with EMC in any shape or form. I am simply a 58 year old retired (senior) life sciences academic, who has for many years considered that EMC is a subject the World must have the "right" to learn about. Had I had known that it would lead to Ronin being accused of "vanity" or "not particularly notable industrial researcher" then I would never have commenced this. It is deeply embarrassing. Noted living academics of impeccable standing should not be subject to such unguarded comments. I said it before, I will say it again: I, as a 58 year old retired senior life sciences academic, am supposed to defend the entry of a noted academic, who has published even with the US National Academies, by virtue of an unsubstantiated nomination made by a user who flouts wiki policy by not discussing this entry and EMC's entry first (yet, nominated BOTH for deletion) and even posts a deeply disrespectful picture of a woman on his user page. And that is all there is to it. Common sense alone would highlight the absurdity. Let alone that having considered matters, I suspect that the nominator may be a "sock puppet" of the first nominator. In any event, the motives are unclear, but one thing is true: despite two nominations for deletion, the EMC entry has NEVER received a "discard" nomination. Never. Res ipsa loquitor. Indeed, with one reviewer of the EMC Afd going so far as to state "this AfD seems like a waste of everyone's time". Res ipsa loquitor indeed.

I hope you find the above further constructive insight. Jono2013 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful.

• You are dangerously close to WP:NLT
• To avoid unintended offense to the article subject I have rephrased me earlier comment Vanity, even if someone else's to Overenthused boosterism,
• Read WP:ACADEMIC, including its notes, then give evidence for one or more of its criteria.

• "Ronin is highly noted in his discipline", on its own, isn't evidence (and please note ACADEMIC's discussion of "discipline sufficiently broadly construed").
• The Eureka award is clearly not "highly prestigious" -- any award evidenced by the recipient's name and achievement being typed into blanks on a form with a preprinted signature [1] isn't highly prestigious.
• Strained claims such as "Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology", as if that was something special, reduce the likelihood people will give serious consideration to your other points.

EEng (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "Strained claims such as "Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology", as if that was something special,", see Hasanbeigi, A; Price, L; Lin, E; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL Paper LBNL-5434E (2013). "Emerging Energy-efficiency and CO2 Emission-reduction Technologies for Cement and Concrete Production", which it cited on the EMC page. It's a U.S. a national review. By THREE non connected academics.

Evaluating energy and materials technologies is part of what LBL does routinely. It's like saying "my product was evaluated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission" -- no big deal. To offer it as evidence of notability shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what notability means on WP. Again, please see WP:ACADEMIC. EEng (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re The Eureka award is clearly not "highly prestigious" -- any award evidenced by the recipient's name and achievement being typed into blanks on a form with a preprinted signature [2] isn't highly prestigious.

Please understand, EUREKA is one of the official arms of the EU Commission promoting European R&D?

NOTE: The award is a TROPHY and a certificate. Please don't tell me you are now raising an innuendo of FORGERY against Professor Ronin??? (In this regard, note that I agree with the unsigned comment above: why would a named and noted academic risk credibility by manufacturing it?) Not only did Ronin receive an award for EMC, but the EMC "discovery/invention" received the GOLD award, and not only the "GOLD award" but also "with mention". The organizing committee of EUREKA is especially rigorous. Since the award, EUREKA may have "moved on", but I do beleive it's fair to say that innovations have to be genuine science, genuine R&D. I'm a bit concerned your missing this point.

• Are you saying the world-leading authority on EMC, it's inventor, 20 years ago, and the author of that accepted term of art, that is common parlance within the academic discipline, twenty years on, is not noted "enough" for Wiki? Or are you saying EMC is not noteworthy enough? Im confused.

By "highly prestigious award" we mean Nobel Prize, Turing Award, Fields Medal, IEEE Medals -- stuff that would be front-page news in a professional organization's publications. The suggestion that the pdf might be faked was unnecessary, but the reason we demand secondary sources (i.e. the bestowing of the award needs to have been discussed in some journal or magazine) is that if no one thought it was worth writing about, then it's not something WP counts toward notability. EEng (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re your first point, I have made no legal threat. Neither has Ronin. I have posted his email on your talk page. I hope this assists.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To add to what Ray found, WoS shows a very short publication list with citations: 17, 12, 4, 0 (h-index 3) using the query "Author=(ronin v*) Refined by: [excluding] Web of Science Categories=(MEDICINE GENERAL INTERNAL) AND [excluding] Web of Science Categories=(ONCOLOGY OR LITERATURE OR LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS) Timespan=All years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" – this is vastly short of WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Addendum. It has been asserted above that "Ronin has even published a paper with the US National Academies". I think most would understand this to mean that Ronin published a paper in PNAS, but such a paper is not in the WoS list. Was this a NAS contract report, perhaps? Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

With respect: That is NOT what I said: I did not say "proceedings", at all. But, moving on let's just take ONE paper from 2005. It's cited 6 times, independently, including Chinese universities including THIS YEAR. Do you note the title of the 2009 (Chinese) citation: It even uses the term EMC. So, 20 years on, Ronin's term is being used, EMC is "understood". The world leading expert??? And you dont think that's notable? See here:

http://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.url?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-34250795667&src=s&imp=t&sid=14ADABC3C9BB0901906ABD8E474EE256.euC1gMODexYlPkQec4u1Q%3a30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&txGid=14ADABC3C9BB0901906ABD8E474EE256.euC1gMODexYlPkQec4u1Q%3a2

• FYI, PNAS is the official journal of the US Nat. Acad. of Sciences, so most people will indeed presume this from what you stated. If it is not what you meant, then might you elaborate on your statement that he "published a paper with the US National Academies"? With respect to the scopus link, I'm afraid 6 citations is not much. With respect to coining the term EMC, it will be helpful to find a secondary source that documents this...otherwise it's only assertion. May I offer some friendly, well-intentioned advice? It will not help your cause to be adversarial. The panelists that have weighed-in here so far are all very seasoned and have checked the usual sources for indications of notability. None have been found. Does that mean Dr Ronin is not notable? No, not yet anyway. What will help is to find additional sources. Assertion, testimonial, unpublished manuscripts, etc. will not count. I assure you that folks here will change their position if proof is forthcoming. Otherwise, I'm afraid he's not notable within the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines. Hope this is helpful. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep on the basis that the gentleman appears to have all the necessary attributes to pass our notability threshold. That the article on Ronin has become embroiled in some unpleasing interactions over a form of concrete is unhelpful. That article and this are separate, and each must stand or fall on its own merits. We need to be adult enough to separate the topics entirely. Here we have a published academic. Generally folk of his calibre are included. It seems bizarre that people are nitpicking. If the article needs an edit, then edit it, but the bloke passes the entry criteria. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please allow me to very gently point out that "published academic" covers most of the professoriat. WP:PROF c1 appears to be the most appropriate test here. The civil engineering profession is thoroughly covered by citation databases, e.g. WoS, and these show he has only a few publications and that those publications have not been highly cited, as the test requires (please see my !vote above). The controversy here is unfortunate and I have tried very gently to advise Jono2013 of the way WP works and what would be more productive for him/her to do to help this article. I don't think it's helpful to categorize routine AfD debate as "nitpicking". We are all chasing-down claims/sources, but so far nothing is panning out. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. This article is a blatant advertisement. A search in Science Citation Index shows only one publication by this author quoted only four times. This is happening because he publish in places that are not even included in Scientific Citation Index database. Plain non-notable. (A disclosure: I am a convinced "inclusionist" and almost never vote "delete"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More Information. It has been asserted several times above that Ronin has "published a paper with the US National Academies", but further requested details have not been forthcoming. This claim has obvious bearing and relevance to Ronin's notability because it implies publication in PNAS, the official and highly prestigious journal of the US Nat. Acad. of Sciences. The paper in question actually turns out to be a presentation at a 2010 conference that was organized by the Transportation Research Board, an Academy sub-committee and then "published" by EMC Cement BV, a Swedish corporation, in their "technical report series". Consequently, I think the claim of having "published a paper with the US National Academies" is highly misleading, at best. This report appears in GS, but has never been cited. This paper is also in the Energetically modified cement article and its incomplete citation there is also somewhat misleading. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Also notice in that same paper that as of its presentation date Dr. Ronin is listed as only an adjunct professor. The paper is also incorrectly labeled as "peer-reviewed" when in fact it was only reviewed by a single professor at the same university. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument about what should and should not be in the article, surely. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, no. This report has apparently never been cited by any other book, published paper, etc., which is not surprising because it's never been published and which further indicates it has not had any impact on the field. This is not surprising, since most significant developments in civil engineering are published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. For example, some of the high-impact journals in this immediate sub-field are: Trans. Res. B, Materials and Structures, Transportation, Computers and Concrete, ASCE J. Structural Eng., J. Materials in Civil Eng., Cem. Concr. Res., etc. Ronin has published a few articles in the last journal there, but these have cited only very lightly (see my !vote above for figures). Rather, much of his work seems to have been at conferences. The general convention in CE, as with most branches of engineering is that, significant/important conference material goes on to be published. What it boils down to is that the field Ronin works in is extremely well-covered by the usual bibliographic tools. Consequently, it's very easy to see notable contributions, where they exist, and vice versa. I'm afraid the picture is pretty clear. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is there really a journal called Computers and Concrete??? EEng (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes. KAIST is a good university so this looks legit to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really doubt it, but it seems like such a narrow intersection of topics, and unidirectional too -- I mean, it's obvious computers can be used in concrete work, but it's hard to imagine what applications concrete finds in computers. EEng (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The journal web site says it is devoted to modeling and computation. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am really surprised that we are still having this conversation. We need at least one RS about the person to establish notability, but we have none. He did not publish anything in high-profile journals, but even if he published 20 papers in Nature and PNAS, that would not be especially relevant. What counts is citation index. A typical citation index of an established scientific researcher is at least several hundred, usually several thousand, however this person was cited only four times based on ISI search. This is simply ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Low citation index is a proof that his research has not made any "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline". My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of publication is irrelevant to notability (not saying that this is notable) -- if someone published at a time when citation indexes are not helpful, we use other means. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep although the citation figures are very low for the inventor of a claimed revolutionary technology, the citation level in the applied aspects of civil engineering tend to run rather low. Even though there are few actual peer reviewed papers, this is a field where technical reports have a rather high degree of importance. Weak keep, not keep, because if the award were truly important , it would be better sourced. The subject seems not responsible for the promotionalism of this article and the one on his invention; if he were, I would not be saying keep. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Energetically modified cement if that is kept, and delete if it isn't. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF as noted by Ray. Sideways713 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This biography article looks like WP:SOAP and possibly WP:COI. Unfortunately. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (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.