Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela L. Johnson

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 Keep. POV issues will need to be addressed through careful edits. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm nominating this particular entry although I'm not so sure how the community will see this case. Mrs Johnson is a doctor who's had a troubled history of malpractice accusations. The article itself has decent, multiple sources whose reliability cannot be questioned. What I do question, however, is whether this really has any encyclopedic value: the article exists primarily to disparage its subject (although, of course, it's not like there seems to be much positive to be said about this doctor) and is transforming Wikipedia into a sort of watchdog. I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia being used in this way although I'm not aware that any of our policies really discusses the issue in a meaningful way. Pascal.Tesson 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (as I'm undecided): there don't seem to be many news articles about Johnson outside of four WaPo articles, part of a series on similar cases, where she is used as an egregious example. [1][2][3][4] I think this does suffice per WP:N, but there's a problem with so many primary references being used and some of the language isn't as careful as it should be per WP:BLP. I certainly hope in the larger scheme of things that being run out of four states is unusual enough that this makes her notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment. Indeed, by the criteria of WP:N she probably does satisfy the requirement of sourcing. So would someone who got busted for multiple DUI or child molestation. However, I'm not sure having Wikipedia entries for them satisfy much purpose besides the rather sad satisfaction of permitting public scorn. Pascal.Tesson 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She does pass WP:N. The article seems a bit bias though. Epbr123 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep The article seems also a good deal unspecific about important facts--education, etc.. current state of things in Texas, and so on. It does not violate BLP, as it reports official actions. As for POV, I wonder a little what could be said on the other side? DGG 06:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak DeleteThe article is extremely POV. I consider the one Washington Post article a reliable source, but I question some of the others. The "The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy" is self described as an advocacy group for licensing of physical therapists, and so I question their meeting WP:ATT with respect to their criticisms of a medical doctor. They are the source for blatant POV phrases such as "she lied." There is "Texas Watch," self described as "a non-partisan, advocacy organization working to improve consumer and insurance protections for Texas families" which also might not satisfy WP:ATT. There are citations to state licensing boards, which are primary sources, where I would prefer secondary sources such as the one newspaper article to explain, interpret and evaluate the sometimes cryptic actions of the licensing board. The article originally had a section on the general problem of which she was just allegedly an exemplar, of hospitals avoiding creating bad publicity about problem doctors and shuffling them off to another unsuspecting hospital or another state. An article on that problem would serve the public interest better than this attack article about one doctor. Is Wikipedia the right forum to present complaint articles about doctors, plumbers, and car mechanics, even if there is a single newspaper article and state licensing actions as sources? I favor deletion if no additional newspaper or similar sources can be found. Likewise, we do not need dozens of similar articles on the dozens of other doctors listed in the Washington Post series sourced only to that article and the licensing board actions. Edison 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As for "notability", she passes. The Washington Post article and the other sources demonstrate exposure. I have no problem with a POV tag. --Oakshade 17:45, 26 March 2007 (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.