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 delete, on the triple. Daniel 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson[edit]

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

This article is liabilist. The information is inaccurate. Dr. Johnson did not "lie" about her application. See the State of New Mexico Board Order. There were not 6 lawsuits. Recommend immediate removal.fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggyLinda (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a colleague of Dr Johnson's. I have worked with her for many years. She is a competent, conscientious doctor who is very concerned with her patient’s well being. Although she has had difficulties associated with major surgical procedures in the past, she has shifted her practice to a specialty that does not require such procedures, and so should be allowed to practice without continuous harassment. Dr Johnson left the practice of OB/GYN in 2002; she has not done surgery since. The Washington Post article was based on an article written in the Los Alamos Monitor. At the time of the article, Dr Johnson was no longer practicing as an obstetrician/gynecologist; she was undergoing another residency training program in preventive medicine after having decided that she would change her practice specialty. The reporter knew this, but she wrote in the article that Dr Johnson was an obstetrician/gynecologist even though she knew this information to be inaccurate.

The Washington Post article has many erroneous statements. Dr Johnson had applied for her VA, NM and MI licenses before she was aware that she had made an error in her application. She made the same error on all application forms based on the information that she received from her NC attorney. Her North Carolina attorney stated this to the VA Medical Board. It is not true that she moved from state to state to avoid problems with the respective state medical boards. The initial medical board order was not written until after Dr Johnson had completed all of these licensure applications and had been practicing in VA and NM. Anyone could tell this by looking at the dates, but the reporter elected to ignore this information and thus made up her own story about Dr Johnson, adding and deleting information until she had a sensational but erroneous story. Dr Johnson had medical licenses in 4 different states. How many times have you unintentionally made an error on an application form and been punished this aggressively? Dr Johnson has been punished more than 4 times by different medical boards for the same error in her applications. In addition, the patient the Washington Post reporter wrote about, was not Dr Johnson's personal patient, she was a non-paying patient who had surgery done by the resident physicians; Dr Johnson's name was one of the attending names on the chart, along with many other Duke physicians. Dr Johnson talked to the editor of the Washington Post after the article was written and explained how the reporter misinterpreted and twisted the information. I believe the reporter is no longer at the Washington Post....but excessive damage has occurred.

I would highly recommend that this article be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaSammy (talk • contribs)

• Delete db-bio, db-attack, take your pick. NN person that lost her medical license and was brought to malpractice. One real media source, BLP magnet. Not improved since last AFD. Don't mind the wall of text above. Clear WP:POINT nomination, but that doesn't make the article any less crappy. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I didn't explicitly !vote during the prior AFD my sentiments were clearly in favor of something like a weak keep. At this point it's clear that Johnson does not meet a continuing coverage test and indeed has very limited attention outside of the one WaPo series. I don't believe she satisfies WP:BIO or WP:BLP1E at this time. Note that I removed about two paragraphs from SashaSammy's post that were clearly libelous against an individual (and basically an ad hominem argument). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sure she's a very poor physician - I wouldn’t let her within 10 feet of my pregnant wife. But this is a slanderous attack page. Dr. Johnson will get her just reward/punishment; the wheels turn slowly, but let's not have Wikipedia serve to harm her. Tiptopper 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting WP:N and WP:RS, but edit. JJL 23:39, 4 November 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.