Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anatoly_I._Gozhenko References

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Anatoly I. Gozhenko

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

There is some notability, but in it's current form the article is not readable and written like a resume letter with no proper sources. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Yeah, what can one say here... The information given in the article is probably correct, even if it is mainly sourced to a primary source associated with the subject (the official page at the institute where he works). So one could argue that there is a formal case for satisfying this or that criterion of WP:PROF here. However, the citability data is extremely low, both in English [1] and even, perhaps more importantly and more tellingly, in Russian [2], particularly for someone, who, according to the text of the article, has had such a long and prolific scientific career. This tells me that we are basically dealing with a walled garden situation, most likely by choice, where the subject's work is almost completely unknown outside of Ukraine, including even in Russia, and where most of his work was published in highly obscure venues and remained largely unnoticed. I don't believe that these kind of cases can be considered as passing WP:PROF, which does require evidence of making a broad impact on a particular field of study. It may be that one can make a case here for passing WP:GNG, but I could not find evidence of that myself. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Seemingly a footnote scholar outside his regional walled garden. I don't think he can meet notability due to his research, but there is a chance he could do this based on awards/membership in some academies/etc. But the article only states he got a presidential award "In 1998 by Presidential Decree prof. Gozhenko was awarded the honorary title "Honored Worker of Science of Ukraine» ". How important is that award this is not something I can answer, as majority sources are in Ukrainian. Presidential awards can be significant, or can be dime a dozen... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Given the lack of evidence of academic impact of his works (e.g. low citation counts in Google scholar), all we have to fall back on is the "honored worker" claim. But in the absence of reliable third-party sourcing that would put that claim into context, I think it's not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (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.