Deletion of Anatoly I. Gozhenko

Comment: 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  here. However, the citability data is extremely low, both in Englishhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A.I.+Gozhenko%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14 and even, perhaps more importantly and more tellingly, in Russian https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22А.И.+Гоженко%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14, 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 , 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 , but I could not find evidence of that myself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)