Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela L. Johnson
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  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 . 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
— User:Edison, 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ATT||WP:ATT (Wikipedia:Attribution)