Deletion of Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist)

Comment: The first two elements of  are clearly met. The subject is covered only in the context of the single  inadvertent dispensing error.  The subject remains, is likely to remain, and apparently wants to remain, a low-profile individual. The third element is likely also met because, standing  alone, the underlying event is not significant.  As stated in , "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."  The potential exists that much of the content could be ''merged'' into another article (e.g., Pharmacy#Issues_in_pharmacy) or an article that covers decriminalization of dispensing errors, but the fact that none have been referenced so far (and I could not find any), suggests that such is not a notable subject either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ARTN)

Comment:  is not met; it requires all three conditions to be satisfied.  "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" is not met; a Department of Health Impact Assessment proposing the decriminalization of inadvertent dispensing errors referred to the case https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403865/IA.pdf 31 and it was referred to in December 2016 following a similar error, again in the context of the call to change to UK law (i.e. not just in relation to the error itself). http://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/lawyer-pharmacists-sentencing-shocking-and-wrong Lawyer: Martin White's sentencing is 'shocking and wrong', ''Chemist and Druggist'', 21st December 2016 http://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/why-martin-whites-case-stark-reminder-us-all Why the case of Martin White is a stark reminder for us all, ''Chemist and Druggist'', 12th December 2016. It was also referred to in relation to workplace stress in a University of Manchester research paper in 2013 http://www.pharmacyresearchuk.org/waterway/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Final-report-FINAL.pdf 5.  "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is not met, as evidenced by the number and breadth of references.  "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" is not met because the event was significant (as demonstrated by the number of references) and the individual's role was substantial and well documented - the event reached the Royal Court of Appeal and catalyzed and/or was referred to by the name of the individual in circa 10 years of subsequent discussions about preventing pharmacists being subject to criminal prosecution for inadvertent dispensing errors (for the significance of this, consider the number of medicines dispensed in the UK each year and the need for pharmacists to be able to openly report dispensing errors in order to learn from them). Coverage is persistent (see references in this comment above) and http://megaslides.com/doc/1740785/slide-1 4 from 21st March 2016. The user nominating for deletion did not detail what was negatively written or what was an attack. Sources include national newspapers, trade press including a well established journal, University presentations and research papers and a determination from the Royal Court of Appeal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Fails . I'm tempted to nominate this for G10, even though it is "well sourced" to various primary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: A clear case of  and Wikipedia should not be a place to humiliate someone forever for one mistake
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)