Talk:Mauricio de Maio

Comments
Content-wise, this is blatant advertising brochure for him and his trademarked "codes" as well as for Allergan. The sources for the treatment being advertised fail WP:MEDRS as well, and it is based too much on sources that are not independent of him or Allergan. He may be notable but this article violates WP:PROMO and is not OK for mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that most often when writer uses ™ and ® symbols it's pretty much a guarantee that it's a marketting person doing paid editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the help guys. I will rewrite the article and make it follow these guidelines you said. I'll check out other medic articles on the mainspace and try to use the same approach. Thanks a lot. LannaM (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. If you read User:Jytdog/How and the section directly above that, it may help you get this done. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Will check that out! Thank you. LannaM (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again and, I just changed the Medical career section. Added a few more sources to prove his travels, but they are all in the same place. I wonder if that is Ok. Also, I'd like some feedback on how is the article altogether now, if possible, so I can send it to review again. Thanks a lot!

Kudos for removing the advertorial elements of the draft. I've added ISBN links for the textbooks. Having three books published by Springer-Verlag, and seeing them held by a good many medical libraries suggests that there is a plausible case for "significance in his field". I'm inclined to accept this for publication, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Articles section, because it wasn't close to being well-sourced. If you can provide sufficient sourcing, feel free to add them back in -- but I would advise against letting the list get too long (such things attract the notice of the deletionists here). But on a more urgent note, I'm concerned about the image. The licensing issue has not yet been cleared up and there is no way that you can claim "fair use" of a photo of a living person that is taken from their official web site. Until the licensing issue is resolved, or the image is removed, I will not accept this draft for publication. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll look into finding sources for the articles, in the meantime I will leave the article the way you left it. About the picture, I'll remove it and add it later (or another one) once I have the licensing properly resolved. I won't edit the article any further unless it is necessary until the review is finished. Once again, thanks for all the help! LannaM (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable
Not sure this person is notable based on the refs provided? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure myself. At best, the notability is borderline.  What tipped it for me was seeing that each of the three textbooks is held by (literally) hundreds of libraries, including medical libraries.  So, I saw a plausible case for "significant impact" under Criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMICS.  But, again, I concede that this is a borderline case.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. He has other source materials which may increase weight on the notability. I'll try to work more on that in the next few days. Thanks! LannaM (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)