Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ihor Bohachevsky

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. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Bohachevsky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A Google search (granted, in English) turns up less than a page of results, most of which seem to revolve around genealogy, are passing mentions, or are part of an obituary for him. The formula mentioned in the article appears to have greater notability than the subject himself, though I found no evidence that it was this formula which allowed the crew of the Apollo 11 spacecraft to return to Earth as claimed. Does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC and does not appear to have enough in-depth coverage to qualify per WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Promotional article altogether. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bohachevsky functions are somewhat known in optimization, and have been implemented throughout software packages (this is my field of expertise), but he has been little more than a bit player in the field. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He was working in pre mass-internet era. A lot of mentions in google books. --Alex Blokha (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of works in google scolar. --Alex Blokha (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have cleaned up the article but I fear it may be wasted effort. One (but only one) of his papers is heavily cited, in the soft computing literature, not so much for any methodological work but instead apparently because it happened to define some simple test functions for optimization algorithms that were picked up in collections of test functions and re-used by many other similar papers. He has two best-paper awards, one for that paper; both were with the same two other coauthors. I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF#C1 or WP:PROF#C2. The other possible pathway to keeping the article is that we have an in-depth story about him, in Ukrainian, on some random web site. I don't think the "American Men & Women of Science" source counts towards WP:GNG, but if this Ukrainian web site can be verified to be a reliable source and we can find another source of as good reliability and depth, there might be a case for GNG-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: There's an in-depth newspaper story about him from 1961 here (page 3 left). So that's one. Still unsure whether the other web site counts as a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article. This page was also included in the wikiproject Ukraine page. 666hopedieslast (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2022 (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.