235:. 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 Knowledge 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.
122:
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
Knowledge into a sort of watchdog. I'm not comfortable with Knowledge being used in this way although I'm not aware that any of our policies really discusses the issue in a meaningful way.
121:
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
230:
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
225:
The 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
177:
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
Knowledge entries for them satisfy much purpose besides the rather sad satisfaction of permitting public scorn.
210:
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?
135:(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.
114:
247:- As for "notability", she passes. The Washington Post article and the other sources demonstrate exposure. I have no problem with a POV tag. --
87:
82:
91:
74:
148:, 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
17:
142:
156:
in the larger scheme of things that being run out of four states is unusual enough that this makes her notable. --
266:
36:
265:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
251:
239:
217:
202:
182:
164:
126:
56:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
78:
70:
62:
140:
138:
136:
179:
161:
123:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
53:
248:
232:
227:
157:
149:
199:
108:
236:
195:
174:
145:
49:
213:
259:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
48:. POV issues will need to be addressed through careful edits.
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
269:). No further edits should be made to this page.
173:Interesting comment. Indeed, by the criteria of
8:
198:. The article seems a bit bias though.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
144:I think this does suffice per
1:
286:
252:17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
240:16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
218:06:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
203:21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
183:19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
165:19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
127:19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
57:22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
262:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
71:Pamela L. Johnson
63:Pamela L. Johnson
277:
264:
112:
94:
34:
285:
284:
280:
279:
278:
276:
275:
274:
273:
267:deletion review
260:
85:
69:
66:
54:Schreit mich an
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
283:
281:
272:
271:
255:
254:
242:
220:
205:
194:She does pass
188:
187:
186:
185:
168:
167:
152:. I certainly
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
282:
270:
268:
263:
257:
256:
253:
250:
246:
243:
241:
238:
234:
229:
224:
221:
219:
216:
215:
209:
206:
204:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:
184:
181:
180:Pascal.Tesson
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
141:
139:
137:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
124:Pascal.Tesson
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
261:
258:
244:
222:
212:
207:
191:
153:
132:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
223:Weak Delete
208:weak keep
249:Oakshade
231:satisfy
158:Dhartung
115:View log
200:Epbr123
133:Comment
88:protect
83:history
237:Edison
233:WP:ATT
228:WP:ATT
150:WP:BLP
92:delete
50:BigHaz
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
245:Keep
196:WP:N
192:Keep
175:WP:N
162:Talk
154:hope
146:WP:N
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:Keep
214:DGG
113:– (
160:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:-
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.