Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist)

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 move to Draft:R v Lee. There is consensus that the person does not meet WP:BLP1E, but no consensus that the event is non-notable. Therefore I have moved it to the draft namespace to allow the article to be rewritten to be about the event. Then it can be moved back to the main namespace, and if anyone so desires, renominated for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist)

Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Negatively written attack article with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not tabloid news Kenny Beer (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. I'm tempted to nominate this for G10, even though it is "well sourced" to various primary sources. Daß Wölf 02:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete A clear case of WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia should not be a place to humiliate someone forever for one mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep More than a "mistake" and something which, as the article makes clear, has had a profound effect of pharmacies in the UK. As the article says, "The case has been used since that time in pharmacy education." This is not "tabloid news" - just look at the sources. My criticism would be that the article is too long, but that is an argument for editing, not deleting. Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any references for that statement anywhere in the article. I've found this, however: "A national effort to decriminalize dispensing errors was catalyzed by the case. One report said of Elizabeth Lee, "It’s up to us to complete the job and ensure her legacy is as the pharmacist who brought an end to criminal prosecutions for dispensing errors."[26] Attempts to change the law are still ongoing as of 2016." (As an aside, the linked "report" is not signed, contains spelling errors, and appears to me to be written in far too familiar language to be official.) I would read this as saying that this event had no lasting consequences in the past 6-9 years. No law was changed and no other progress has been alleged, sourced or not. And even if there was, it should not be summarised at Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist), but at something in the vein of 2010 UK pharmacy reform (or, more probably, as a sentence or two in Pharmacies in the United Kingdom or the like, since laws, edicts and training materials aren't inherently notable). Daß Wölf 18:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References added with minor revision. Rok2thedrop 23:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Rok2thedrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete fails the rules of 1 event, especially for living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Aside from the BBC and Telegraph story, all sources are not reliable. Despite this incident being a temporary news event, it does not meet the guidelines of notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLP1E is not met; it requires all three conditions to be satisfied. WP:BLP1E "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 [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). . It was also referred to in relation to workplace stress in a University of Manchester research paper in 2013 [5]. WP:BLP1E "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. WP:BLP1E "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 [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.Rok2thedrop 23:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Rok2thedrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Given this is as said by the article creator, yes what she did wasn't a good thing, this sound like a tabloid style crusade to discredit somebody and your point proves that. Kenny Beer (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• I still don't think BLP1E has been accounted for here. With respect to the first condition, the sources you provided indeed cover the person, but they cover her only in the context of the court case, therefore meeting this condition of BLP1E. Condition #2 remains likely for a similar reason -- there is almost no information about Elizabeth Lee available beyond the matters of the court case. The only other piece of info I could find about her was her age. Condition #3, I agree that this event is probably notable and likely deserves its own article, but it's not nearly notable enough to warrant an article about Elizabeth Lee. To compare with the example in WP:BLP1E, the article on John Hinckley Jr. has a good 1,500 words of content not concerning the Reagan assassination attempt, and would have no trouble standing on its own two feet if the assassination info were removed. This article, on the other hand, would remain a one-sentence stub. Daß Wölf 00:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and consider rename The breadth and scope of reporting on the case goes beyond the minimums required to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on the possibility on making the article about the event rather than the person, as has been proposed.  Sandstein  13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - The first two elements of WP:BLP1E 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 WP:ARTN, "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.--Rpclod (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion The court case and its ramifications are, I would have thought, of importance, given the effect on the pharmacy trade in the UK. How about renaming the article after the case, R v Lee, and trimming accordingly. Emeraude (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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.