Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen and Mike Webberley

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. Consensus is clear that this does not belong in mainspace, but it's unclear whether anyone wants to actively work on it in draft space. Ping me and happy to provide a copy. Star Mississippi 00:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen and Mike Webberley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COATRACK with WP:BLP concerns GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might be notable, but it's written like an essay. Would likely need a TNT and much better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously, as I am the author). The Webberleys have received prominent news coverage over a number of years for distinct events. The sourcing is to official court proceedings, BBC News, the BMJ, etc. The fact that Helen Webberley has a criminal record for running an unlicensed online medical clinic (transgender medicine) seems to be a unique event. In addition to the numerous proceedings related to specifically online transgender medicine, the fact that the tribunal linked this to her involvement in two online pharmacies (not related to transgender medicine), which were found not to be safe or effective, is obviously relevant, in the context that while I believe the Webberleys hold that they have a duty to operate in this manner to save transgender people, sources of unimpeachable authority (i.e. UK courts) are quite clear that this had been going on previously as well. The fact that **both** members of a married coupled of GP have been struck off and/or convicted of criminal offences is obviously again highly notable. It is not really clear to me what the 'coatrack' argument is referring to. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - While the Webberleys are I think notable with sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, and a decent article about them could be made, the article as it currently stands is very close to being an attack page. Any BLP about either of them would need to be handled with a tremendous level of care, and even then would be a frequent target for disruption given the nature of their work and recent history. I only support draftify on the proviso that the BLP sees a significant rewrite, with particular attention paid to the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious notability, and this article reads like a hit piece (WP:ATTACK). Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or draftify), AfD is not cleanup. Simply remove any unsourced or poorly sourced material. However, there are numerous high-quality sources listed in the citations per WP:RSP, including BBC News and the BMJ. Well-sourced facts about notable people do not an attack page make, and there is plenty of opportunity here for that. Going the other way, we do not whitewash or censor unflattering material so long as it is well-sourced and on a notable subject. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just having committed a crime doesn't confer notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. If it did we'd have millions of articles on petty criminals. To keep this article it would have to be about more than crimes. For example, did their "criming" lead to significant changes in a profession or a political body? Also, are there articles that are not focused on the crimes? I haven't found any. What I would look for is a biographic article that covers the entire life of one or both of them, everything else that isn't about the crimes. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ? I'm not sure if you read the article very carefully but it's not about crimes per se, but medical malpractice, which in most cases is (was) dealt with via professional/employment-type proceedings, not criminal ones. Since there are important implications for telemedicine AND for transgender treatment, it's strange to characterise this as about a criminal. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In 2018 Helen was convicted of criminally running an online medical clinic without a licence..." Look, it doesn't matter what we call it - if there are important implications, those are entirely lacking from the article. I don't know if there are any sources that consider those implications, but if someone finds them those should be noted in this discussion. Otherwise, as I said, this article is just a listing of "crime and non-crime malpractice" events on the part of two people. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. Well I have now added some context, which is that Helen Webberley's actions in prescribing hormones whilst suspended to children on the NHS waiting lists were supported by staff within the NHS gender identity development services, and whistleblowers explicitly told not to raise this matter. This eventually resulted in £20,000 compensation being awarded. It is rather odd, IMO, to try to claim that the Webberleys are just random criminals or doctors disbarred for being incompetent, and not key figures in the debate/battle about how to treat transgender children. Sumbuddi (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't see anything beyond a list of trespasses. If they are "key figures in the debate" then please link to sources in which they are key figures in the debate. Oh, and explain how their "case" affected the debate. Lamona (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources, the article, and it seems to be non-notable. I don't think a clean up would help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be draftify for the correction BBSTOP (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (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.