Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Needs massive restructuring User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The structure is:

• Medical overview (which covers background information)
• Incidence (split by country)
• Law and policy (ditto)
• Notable cases

What do you think is wrong with the structure? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Its a fairly prolife article that convolves a few concepts:

• failed medical abortion
• failed late pregnancy termination
• failed foeticide
• “abortion survivor” argument i.e. the psychosocial impacts of being told you were supposed to be aborted.

• washington examiner and youtve links
• highlights on prominent “case studies” of individuals who claim to be abortion survivors and are now antiabortion

it makes the claim foeticide is inherent in abortion.

im not an expert on this, but bias and synth seems obvious, no? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

So when you asked for "restructuring", did you actually mean "help removing bias from an article whose overall structure is fine"? (You've given no evidence of WP:SYNTH violations.)

I'm not sure why you think that concepts like "failed medical abortion" (words that don't appear in the article?) are pro-life. All medical procedures have a failure rate, and abortion is no different, nor should it be treated any differently in Wikipedia.

The article doesn't claim that feticide is inherent in abortion. The article accurately claims that feticide during a late-term abortion prevents live births. To give an example of ordinary ways for medical sources to address this subject, one of the cited sources says things like "failure to perform feticide could result in live birth and survival, an outcome that contradicts the intention of the abortion" and "The RCOG currently recommends feticide for terminations over 21⁺⁶ weeks." This is not some pro-life advocacy group; this is the language chosen by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in their report on how to perform these abortions. If the language of professional sources makes some people feel squicky, then that is unfortunate for them, but it's not "biased" for us to use the medical terminology that we find in MEDRS sources.

(Do you genuinely think any ordinary human would be happy to discover that their parents tried to have them aborted, or are you just trying to promote a political POV here? Let's please have a little common sense. Learning that your parents did everything in their power to prevent you from even being born is not going to make people feel loved and accepted and protected, especially if this revelation is followed by "and that's why you're missing an arm". It's going to make them feel profoundly rejected. Also, maybe we should have an article on Abu Hayat.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

this version - , current one had significant work done.

• While relatively uncommon, such outcomes can occur if the feticidal step of an abortion procedure is omitted or unsuccessful - there is no specifically required feticidal step in early pregnancy.
• this previous version calls out late-term abortion 7 times. Of note, this is a political term, medicine does not call it this , and the proper terminology for this is probably late termination of pregnancy.
• it should be noted that Late termination of pregnancy is usually done when the pregnancy is likely to be nonviable or for the child to have significant deformities, the lede of this version inverts this to say that live births from late termination after an abortion suffered from deformities and were likely to die immediately after birth. Without the late termination, the newborn likely would have suffered anyways. A significant percentage of infants born alive after an attempted abortion do not survive long after birth. Over 11% of attempted second trimester abortions led to live birth.[2] Attempted abortions resulting in live births could cause an infant mortality rate increase of 8.6%.[3]

• that 8.6% increase rate btw is excess of 0.2 deaths per 1,000

• the previous version of the article fails to mention efficacy of earlier abortion or that it is far more common.
• I dont claim any discussion of survivors of pregnancy termination is inherently pro-life. the framing of article, convoluting a supposed fail efficacy of abortion, feticide, legal definitions, and notable case studies, was pushing an obvious pro-life perspective, and others clearly agreed, as seen by the edits since then.

I appreciate your perspective and I apologize if I wrote with poor tact on a sensitive issues, especially if it offends those who had to suffer from negative repercussions growing up knowing they were not wanted. This was not my intent, and I wrote poorly. If it isn’t obvious, this is not necessarily an area of expertise for myself.

However, there was objectively significant synth issues going on here, usage of primary medical resources to make overarching claims, and deceptive descriptions and convolution of research, medicine, and personal anecdotes. I agree Abu Hayat could possibly have his own article, as could abortion survivors and the effects of attempted abortion on survivors. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Reading what i wrote before, i definitely treated the subject matter idiotically and insensitively especially regardingg abortion survivors (probably reflecting my lack of experience in this topic). In hindsight, I appreciate the correction and reminder that its sensitive though i still believe in my criticism of the article as it had stood. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman, I was not the one who added the point about live births raising the infant mortality. I also did not add the percentage of attempted second trimester abortions to the lede, that was someone else. I agree that the placement of those things was not fit.

"Late-term abortion" is not a one-sided term, it is used by sources on all sides of this issue, especially when it comes to policy and media. However, I do think that a more appropriate and clinical term would probably be "later abortion" or "abortion late in pregnancy" or "postviability abortion," yet "late termination of pregnancy" also works (all of these are synonymous).

As for feticide, there are two meanings of this term. Number one, it can encompass any part of any abortion which results in the death of the embryo or fetus. Feticide, by definition, is the part of an abortion that induces embryonic or fetal demise. Additionally, feticide can more specifically refer to an injection used in later abortions to cause fetal death. This is probably what you are referring to. The reason feticide was mentioned altogether on this article is that, even in abortion procedures that did not use a feticidal injection (such as dilation and evacuation or dilation and extraction or instillation abortion), the entire reason that live births following abortion happen is because the feticidal objective of abortion (regardless of stage or method) was not successful, and a live birth occurred. (Let me know if you need sources for any of these... I just don't want to clog this page with a ton of sources).

As for your comment about the article being written in a pro-life perspective, I would agree that the original version of the article (back when it was named abortion survivors and lacked a lot of medical sourcing) could have been easily seen as being non-neutral. This is why I spent over a year trying to fix it and make it more appropriate. However, I understand that there may be parts I have missed or parts that you still think are not appropriate, which is why I am attempting to discuss on the talk page of the article ways to improve it.

And lastly, kudos to you for your acknowledgements and apology in response to WhatamIdoing. That's very respectable. I apologize if I have ever been hostile towards you, I got a bit upset when you accused me of using AI when I didn't and when I spent over a year working on the article, but I understand that my responses to you were not always appropriate. DocZach (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for causing distress by putting the article on AINB. I did not mean to accuse, but as someone who saw much AI all over wikipedia, I’ve been a bit too wary; I wanted someone to give it the once over who had more experience. To be fair, I should have known better, and as someone who wrote this I showed remarkable hypocrisy using GPTZero without putting more effort in to see if there was something else happening.

Apologies again.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Requested move 1 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi you've posted this twice (you may want to remove one of them) they are exactly the same, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Qwerty123M thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm interested in upgrading this article from C to B, so suggestions are appreciated.
For now I'm thinking that having the Skin separate subsection in the Signs and symptomsis a bit illogical. Shouldn't there be at least Airways subsection as it is another organ that is heavily involved in the Signs and symptoms of Allergy? Maybe something else as well? Victoria (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that an ===Airway=== sub-section could be useful.

Do you have some sources that you're happy with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have the PubMed full of sources - there are always good reviews on any topic. Victoria (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

For such a broad topic, I wonder if books like these might be more useful:

• Caffarelli, Carlo; Marseglia, Gian Luigi, eds. (2024). Textbook of Pediatric Allergy. Springer Nature Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71283-8. ISBN 978-3-031-71282-1.
• Traidl-Hoffmann, Claudia; Zuberbier, Torsten; Werfel, Thomas, eds. (2022). Allergic Diseases – From Basic Mechanisms to Comprehensive Management and Prevention. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Vol. 268. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84048-8. ISBN 978-3-030-84047-1.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

They would be useful if I wanted to write a FA on the topic and I had access to them. I think they are a bit overkill for a brief introduction into the topic. Victoria (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

They're free in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library: WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What about describing (or at least mentioning) atopic march ()? Atopic dermatitis is mentioned, but atopic march is not mentioned at all. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

There's an article about it, Allergic march, but it definitely could be mentioned. Victoria (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, the current definition looks like a definition of an allergic reaction. Wouldn't it be better to define allergy as hypersensitivity or overreaction? It's not clear that allergy is a condition, not just an immediate reaction or response (a symptom). You can have allergy without any symptoms for a long time. The main question is how to make the definition more understandable but still universal in such cases. Some time ago I rewrote the leading section of the article about allergy in Russian Wikipedia, it might give some thoughts. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not confident enough to change the existing definitions. Victoria (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed move to differences in sex development. Figured it would be of interest to this WikiProject. Discussion is here if you want to participate. Urchincrawler (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak is a mix of news about an ongoing maritime incident, and background about hantavirus, and is being edited rapidly as the situation about the outbreak at sea develops. Interested medical topics editors might want to visit from time to time to ensure compliance. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthohantavirus#Requested move 8 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing to request an independent review of a draft article about Bart C. J. M. Fauser, a Dutch reproductive endocrinologist and Professor Emeritus of Reproductive Medicine at Utrecht University.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I am the subject of this article and am disclosing my conflict of interest in full accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Wikimedia Foundation terms of use]]. I have not moved the article to mainspace and am requesting that an independent editor review and, if appropriate, move it.

Why this subject may meet notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC):

• International member of the National Academy of Medicine (United

States), elected 2019

• Member of Academia Europaea, elected 2023
• Knight in the Order of the Netherlands Lion, appointed 2017
• Fellow ad eundem of the [[Royal College of Obstetricians and

Gynaecologists]], 2016

• Lead author of the 2004 Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM PCOS consensus — described

by the Academia Europaea as the most cited publication in clinical reproductive medicine

• Most cited author in clinical reproductive medicine 2003–2012 per an

independent bibliometric study (Aleixandre-Benavent et al., Fertility and Sterility, 2015)

• Chair of the WHO steering committee for infertility guidelines (2012–2018)
• Former Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Update and Reproductive

Biomedicine Onlinead eundem

Sources used in the draft:

• Official NAM election announcement (nam.edu) — confirms membership and

election citation

• Academia Europaea member profile (ae-info.org) — confirms positions,

honours, and career

• Five peer-reviewed journal citations with DOIs and PMIDs
• Independent bibliometric study (Fertility and Sterility, 2025)
• WHO-linked publication (Human Reproduction, 2026)

Draft location: User:Bart C. J. M. Fauser/sandbox

I welcome any edits, corrections, or restructuring by independent editors. Thank you for your time. Bart C. J. M. Fauser (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any truly medical claims. I doubt that authorship in a research makes the claim medical. So is this request even suitable for this forum?
Apart from the medical staff, are there any sources that make the topic notable? If there aren't any, the article couldn't be created. Also, the sources which list an author in the list of authors aren't suitable for Wikipedia. They are not secondary sources for such facts, and so such information will be undue. But I didn't really check what's inside the sources you provided. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bart C. J. M. Fauser, did you use an LLM or chatbot to write this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, but these facts:

• Chair of the WHO steering committee for infertility guidelines (2012–2018)
• Former Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Update and Reproductive

mean that you probably qualify for a separate, stand-alone article. The main problem is that the draft itself appears to violate Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. I'm willing to help you navigate this, if you'd like some help. In return, maybe you could do me a favor? I'd love to have an expert like you read through some of our articles on reproductive medicine and remove any errors and misinformation you see. The Dutch-language Wikipedia probably needs the help even more than we do (e.g., nl:Onvruchtbaarheid#Mens or nl:Polycysteus-ovariumsyndroom). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dragon bones#Requested move 13 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

the actual link is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1354433698#Requested_move_13_April_2026 (which was moved)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah because the requested move discussion closed. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose we should be thankful to the people finding these for us:

1. Estrogen synthesis inhibitor  Done
2. Expiratory apnea  Done
3. Fusional vergence  Done
4. Hakim Rais Unani Medical College and Hospital  Done
5. Healthcare in Berkshire  Done
6. Instruments used in dermatology Done
7. Instruments used in oncology Done
8. Instruments used in urology  Done
9. Intensive Care Foundation  Done
10. Inter-ictal spiking  Done
11. Intracapsular fracture Done
12. Intradialytic parenteral nutrition Done
13. Ophthalmic pathology Done
14. Pediatric Diabetes Done
15. Postrhinal cortex Done
16. Pyocyanase  Done

Most of these are newly tagged, rather than new articles. Please add a source, remove the maintenance tag from the top of the article, and then mark it as  Done on the list. This isn't difficult work. It usually just needs five minutes or so. I'd love to see 16 editors each doing one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Innisfee and Victoria. Who's next? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeking input at Template_talk:Infobox_outbreak#"Strain"_parameters. The only way to specify a causative agent in that infobox is via parameters such as |virus_strain=, which leads to the infobox displaying "virus strain". However, many of the values are species or even genera, not strains. Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is too specific and misleading and it should be |pathogen= instead of |virus_strain=

For the historical cases the strain and even species often is not known. Victoria (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The concept of Interstitium was in the news today. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/11/magazine/interstitium-anatomy-acupuncture-medicine.html. Perhaps WikiProject Medicine members would like to prioritize the Wikipedia article for a quality review or writing more about it. Regards, ↠Pine (✉) 05:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject Medicine editors,

I would like to bring to your attention an open-access scoping review on Difficult-to-Treat Depression (DTD), a clinical concept that extends the traditional framework of treatment-resistant depression.

Paganin W, Signorini S, Sciarretta A. Difficult-To-Treat Depression. Scoping Review. Clinical Neuropsychiatry. 2023;20(3):173-182. PMID: 37522111 PMCID: PMC10375274

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10375274/

The article summarizes current evidence on the definition, clinical features, and management of DTD and may be useful as a secondary source for future Wikipedia content on this topic.

Best regards. ~2026-28989-50 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Inaccurate crediting of Virological post. Mathglot 19:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a recent reddit thread that voices concerns about the Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The complaint of Reddit is that its MAHA adjacent framing that downplays depression. Would definitely benefit from extra eyes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

From my memory of these articles there's problem stemming from strong POVs (/class action lawsuits) that make them hard to edit. Playing by the book and sticking to the WP:BESTSOURCES is probably the only way through. ... Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've removed some of the clearly offending sentences that reddit highlighted. The biggest pain point is undue weight on the side effects, but that will require someone with more time on their hand to figure out what is proportionate. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death/Suicide task force § Should deaths by euthanasia also be categorized under suicide categories?. Sdkb ^talk 21:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Medicine, I'm Lexi and I'm a physician working for Supernus Pharmaceuticals. I noticed the Medical uses section of the apomorphine article is a bit unclear and contains some outdated information. I proposed a new section with better sourcing, but because of my COI can't make the changes myself. Would anyone here be interested in taking a look? Lexi at Supernus (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Victoria (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The yearly Jonathan King Lectures at Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics would not qualify for a Wiki page. But they probably deserve a few paragraphs somewhere. I am not familiar with this project and would not know where to add that. Moreover, I personally knew Jonathan quite well, and that would be an issue. But I think the message in those lectures needs to be mentioned somewhere. Thank you in advance. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams..., is that a Named lecture? Alternatively, if Jonathan J. King is a viable article, then a mention in a ==Legacy== section would be normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is a named lecture, it has been for 25 years. Just search for Jonathan King lecture on Bioethics at Stanford and you will see it. There are also videos about it, not that I could bring myself to see him in the videos in that state. He was a clever and fun fellow before that. The message he was giving at the end was that terminal patients should not be treated as dead meat. See what Shortliffe was saying. I did a few edits about it, but perhaps you could do more. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request assistance from an experienced editor to create an English biographical article for Boris Cvek (Czech biochemist, author, and philosopher). He meets academic notability criteria (NCITE) as a co-corresponding author on a landmark 2017 Nature paper (the disulfiram/CuET cancer mechanism discovery) and for introducing the "nonprofit drugs" concept in Drug Discovery Today. He also has a massive publicist footprint in the Czech daily Britské listy and completed his philosophy dissertation under Jaroslav Peregrin. A fully structured, completely neutral draft (including infobox, categories, and references) is ready to go. Because I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editing interface, I would be deeply grateful if a volunteer could take this text and create the page or guide it through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. The raw text for the draft can be found below:

Boris Cvek (born 1976) is a Czech chemist, author, philosopher of science, and publicist. He specializes in medicinal chemistry, drug repurposing, and healthcare socioeconomics. He is best known for his research into the anticancer properties of the alcohol-abuse drug disulfiram and its copper metabolite (CuET), culminating in a landmark 2017 co-corresponding publication in Nature. Cvek is also the conceptual creator of the "nonprofit drugs" framework and a prominent cultural commentator for the independent daily Britské listy.

Thank you for your help in bridging this gap on the English platform! BorisCvek (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see my entries on the following talk pages:

• Category talk:Antiseptics and disinfectants#Wrong relationship with category Antiseptics
• Category talk:Antiseptics#Wrong relationship with category "Antiseptics and disinfectants"

I propose to reverse their parent–child relationship.

Ion Soggo (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ion Soggo, are you familiar with ATC code D08? Some of these category trees are based on ATC classifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thank you for pointing this out; I do need to learn the ATC classifications.

Ion Soggo (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I realize that Category:Antiseptics and disinfectants has template {{ATC category|D08}}, while Category:Antiseptics has not. Still, I believe the relationship between them is wrong. Can a part be greater than the whole?

Ion Soggo (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

COI disclosure: I am Alasdair MacLullich, editing as Avoreardon. I have a direct conflict of interest regarding any biography of me and related topics where my own work is central, including the 4AT. I will not create, move, submit, review, or directly edit any article or draft about myself.

I am posting this once, transparently, because a previous WT:MED discussion is now archived and because there is an old userspace draft titled User:Noxoug1/Alasdair MacLullich. I am not asking any particular editor to take action, and I will not canvass, ping, privately contact, or chase editors. If independent editors judge that the topic is unsuitable for a standalone article, or that any draft should be cut, rewritten, redirected, merged, or deleted, I will accept that.

Per feedback about readability, I am condensing to the three most useful sources (with more available on request).

• Tieges Z, MacLullich AMJ, Anand A, et al. "Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis." Age and Ageing. 2021;50(3):733–743. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa224. PMID:33951145. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951145/
• European Delirium Association, "About us": lists Alasdair MacLullich as past president, 2012–2015, and lists Liz Sampson as 2026 President. https://www.europeandeliriumassociation.org/about-us.html
• Society of Apothecaries, "Farr Medal Winners 2006–2026": lists the 2017 William Farr Medal for Prof A MacLullich. https://www.apothecaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Farr-Medal-Winners-2006-2026.pdf

If an independent editor decides to assess or work on this, I am happy to answer factual questions on-wiki and provide stable links, DOIs, PMIDs, or page numbers where useful. I will not provide promotional article text and will not edit any article or draft directly. Avoreardon (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Avoreardon: This is a big WP:WALLOFTEXT that people are not going to read. Could you please condense the above to make clear what you'd like to get from editors. Do not make people assess such a large number of links, choose the WP:THREE most convincing sources if you want to increase your chances of getting a response. If you want to submit a COI draft article, the place to go is WP:AfC. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 14:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting. It's very difficult to find an editor who will do this type of work on request, but upon my quick look, I believe you likely meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You are a full professor, medicine is a highly-cited field, but you seem well-cited for someone working in medicine and therefore likely meet the first criterion of WP:NPROF. You are allowed to write your own biography at WP:AfC with the appropriate COI tags, even though it is strongly discouraged (WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) and the standard advice is to wait for someone to pick it up in years to come.

We do welcome experts like you into the editing community. There is plenty of work needed on our articles about geriatry. Just fixing a single mistake (or encouraging people in your team to fix a single mistake) can be very satisfying. For instance, the article delerium has a lot of sources that do not meet our requirement for recent evidence anymore (review papers that are published in the last 5 years per WP:MEDDATE) In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 14:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Avoreardon, have you thought about the fact that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? If you want this, I'll move it to the mainspace and remove the irrelevant tag about the WP:GNG (because it should be evaluated against WP:NPROF instead). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thank you. I have considered this now again following your caution.

I do understand that any mainspace article would not be mine, would need to be neutral and independently sourced, and would fall under the ‘biography of living persons’ policy.

If you believe that WP:NPROF is met and moving or revising the draft is appropriate, I would welcome an independently edited article. Given my COI, I will not directly edit it myself.

I am happy to answer factual questions here or provide independent sources if that would be useful. Avoreardon (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the mainspace. If problematic content gets added in the future, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)