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 procedural close as a malformed nomination. No prejudice against a properly formed nomination if the currently active PROD is contested. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mark Boguski (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mark Boguski|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

this is a non notable article, and clearly paid for Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, procedurally, as a severely malformatted nomination. The nominator apparently does not know how to properly list an article for an AfD. At the moment, neither the article nor its talk page are tagged with an AfD tag. There is still a PROD tag, placed by the nominator, at the article itself. If the nominator wishes to list the article (rather than its talk page) for an AfD, this needs to be re-done from sctratch by following the instructions at WP:AFD. If the nominator only wishes to have the talk page of the article deleted, the appropriate nomination needs to be listed at WP:MFD. Regarding the article itself. There is a disclosure note at the talk page by the article's creator confirming that the article is indeed a product of paid editing. However, the subject is certainly notable per WP:PROF. The lead paragraph mentions that he is an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Medicine. Although no reference is provided, this fact easily checks out[1]. That alone already makes the subject pass WP:PROF#C3. The article is very underlinked and in general poorly written in terms of complying with our sourcing and notability requirements. The sources cited do not provide publication details (so that it is unclear which ones are published by the subject and which ones are third-party references). No references are given for the National Academy of Medicine membersip, and there are no mentions of awards, journal editorships etc (which the subject does have, according to his CV[2]). The CV also mentions that he is a former editor-in-chief of Genomics (journal), which would make him qualify under WP:PROF#C8. GoogleScholar shows h-index above 60. Whomever let this article through at AfC in its current form did a pretty sloppy job, and the paid editor apparently does not really know what they are doing either. The article needs substantial clean-up, not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2019 (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.