Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Choat

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 of the debate wasNo Consensus, Keep. Delete:11 Keep: 8 Deletion percentage of 58 percent. Not enough consensus. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heidi Choat

I have concerns about this article because it purports to be about a living person and a lot of unreferenced and unverifiable allegations are made. There is only one relevant Google hit, an archive of sex offenders which only states her name, age and sentence [1]. This site is the only online reference cited in the article. The rest of the Google hits appear to be about a West Wing character. There are also no hits for legal documents containing the name in any database on AustLii. [2] In addition to this, given the lack of online references, I question whether it meets notability standards. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Does Wikipedia have a special policy concerning paedophilia offenders? Because if there is none this seems an overwhelmingly non-notable criminal (per google). Does Wikipedia treat sex offenders differently from, say, crack dealers? (Assuming otherwise non-famous non-serial-type one-time criminals which this seems to be.) Weregerbil 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a paedophile doesn't establish notability. Wikipedia is not newspaper column about criminality. There are no special policies about paedophilie offenders but common sense says it is not worth of being encyclopedia topic. Pavel Vozenilek 13:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. With due respect, Pavel, the article does not cite Choat's paedophilia as the reason for her notability. A detailed explanation of the notability of her case is provided in the concluding paragraph. It is her case even more than the woman herself which is notable. --SilverWings 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable criminal. Googling for "heidi choat" teacher gives two mentions besides Wikipedia and a West Wing character, does not appear to be a subject of media attention (though this was in 1999 and the Web was smaller then, so Australians please chime in if this was a major case and a household name!). Weregerbil 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 17:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete per pavel voznilek. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the original author of the article. I have now provided references for this article - as a busy student, this was simply a work in progress (as is the case with many Wikipedia articles, often unreferenced and often with significantly less content than this one). The concluding paragraph carefully provides reasons for the notability of this subject and it is surely tortuous to suggest that this has not been established. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) guidelines include the criterion: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". One might argue about the level of notability / notoriety established, but this case is significant within the specific genre to which it belongs within Australian criminal law and is cited in the consideration of other such cases. This subject is an increasingly frequent matter being dealt with by courts in US and Australian jurisdictions particularly, and certain trends are emerging of which this case forms a significant part. Any person studying the emergence of female paedophilia in Australian schools would welcome this and similar articles as providing a reliable source of information. The fact that the article provides few Google hits is explained by the fact that the case occurred at a time when online reportage was not extensive. This fact might also be used to support the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, since it will provide the only significant online resource about this case. The lack of hits on AustLii is explained by the fact that AustLii only reports on (Australian) High Court, state Supreme Court and Federal Court cases, not cases dealt with by lower level courts in state jurisdictions. I request that the deletion tag on this article please be removed. --SilverWings 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion your referencing (a short database entry and a hardcopy article) is not sufficient for an article which makes serious allegations about a living person. I still do not believe notability has been established per WP:BIO. As an Australian myself, I do not believe this person is renowned or notorious. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading 'People still alive', WP:BIO refers to "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". This case was published as the headline article on the front page of the state newspaper of the state (Queensland) in which it occurred, the article being of sufficient length that it was continued on an inside page. The fact that the case does not register ongoing notoriety does not detract from the fact that it was notorious at the time it occurred and that it has ongoing significance within the genre of such cases. I am glad that you state that "in [your] opinion" the referencing is not sufficient, because a reading of the newspaper article in question will provide ample evidence of the facts to which I have referred. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact for anyone who will go to the trouble of accessing and reading the article, which could be done at any state or university library in Australia. --SilverWings 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment You do not seem to understand what I mean by referencing. A person should not have to go to a library to verify the content in the article. I think the fact you are suggesting this establishes the person is nn. As does the fact you are only able to point to one newspaper article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed not sure what you mean by referencing, if referencing cannot include items widely held in libraries. WP:RS dos not indicate that only online sources may be cited. Referencing to print and microform sources is still an established practice in academia, research and writing, despite the increasing prevalence of online sources. To suggest that a person "should not have to go to a library" is denying the importance of what is still a major source of information in our community and intellectual life. I am not sure why more than one source is required, if that source is significant, reliable and verifiable. --SilverWings 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not saying that only online sources can be used. I'm suggesting that if this woman is a notable or notorious criminal, there would be some online references to her. I have general concerns about the fact you appear to think tacking adding a hardcopy article and a database entry at the end of the article is sufficient referencing for an article which is potentially defamatory. Also, the photo appears to be identical to the image on Mako (it even appears to have the same creases). This makes me wonder what is going on. If you are from Mako and you did indeed scan that image and make that entry, Mako should be discounted as a reference for the purpose of this discussion. If you are not from Mako and you did not scan the image, you should correct your "self-scanned" copyright declaration. Regardless, I do not feel comfortable with you hanging this article on one single newspaper article. This is my final comment on this page. I shall leave it in the trustworthy hands of the AfD people. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that your use of the term 'tacking' in regard to my reference is a slight to my skills as a writer, and do not appreciate it. The use of the neutral term 'adding' would be preferable. The article would only be defamatory if it were not based on any verifiable sources, so there is no concern there. In regard to the photo: I am indeed definitely not 'from' Mako, nor do I have any connection with or interest in that organization. I would suggest that the similarity in the images is due to their having scanned it from the same microform source as I did, albeit no doubt a different copy of the microform. Thank you for your interest in my articles, and for conducting a (generally) civil discussion. --SilverWings 23:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sorry but there are serious concerns about defamation and Jimbo has repeatedly asked us to err on the side of caution when dealing when living people. You saying it's not defamatory because you have one newspaper article means nothing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for Jimbo's comments (who's Jimbo, by the way? pardon my ignorance, but I'm not yet on first-name terms with (presumably) administrators here. Can you reference him too please?) Now, as to the newspaper article, I don't 'have' the article, it exists, free for all to access, in probably 300+ libraries in Australia and probably dozens of others around the world. All of the material facts in this article are drawn from the newspaper article, so there is nothing in Wikipedia which has not already been said elsewhere. In regard to conclusions drawn, these are only factual extrapolations from the facts of the case, and do not make value judgments about the individual concerned, so there is no basis for any defamation action. If other evidence was available, I would have cited that too. I would observe, by the way, that The Courier-Mail seems to be a newspaper which withdraws its online articles much earlier than most newspapers - you will probably find that some of thie links where it is cited for other articles are already dead - hence my desire to add print references as well, in the long term. --SilverWings 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Weregerbil. I think the lack of on-line references does suggest a lack of noteriety. The conviction was in 1999; there were plenty of online sources by then. --Thunk 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers via a database came up with nothing although it may not go back that far. One newspaper article is not sufficient to establish notability in my book. She is certainly not well known in Australia and that she should be left free to live the rest of her life. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC).Capitalistroadster 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per weregerbil --Khoikhoi 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are a lot of 'me too' notes here, but nothing that I have not fully dealt with in my substantive comments. People who are saying more are still leaving comments about matters which I have already fully replied to. I hope this isn't what passes for serious discussion on Wikipedia! In further reply to one or two items raised: (1) The comment by Thunk that "there were plenty of online sources by then" is very general and does not consider, for example, what was the state of online newspaper services in Queensland at that time? (2) The fact that she "is...not well known in Australia" presumably means that Capitalistroadster has not heard of her; this would be true of many, many Wikipedia articles of a specialist nature, while not addressing the fact that, for those who are interested in the field concerned, this case is significant. (3) The sentiment that "she should be left free to live the rest of her life", while a fine idea on a human level, is not really an argument foror against deletion of this article; that logic could be applied to any criminal, and also fails to consider the fact that her victim would no doubt have liked to be left free to get on with his life, but is unlikely to forget these events. An additional extension of some of my earlier observations, also, would ask editors to consider the basic function of Wikipedia in this way: if lack of numerous online references to a subject be considered reason for deletion of an article, where does this leave Wikipedia as a repository of unique online knowledge as opposed to simply a convenient clearing house for organizing information which is already online? --SilverWings 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. I refer editors to this discussion on the Talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which suggests that non-notability is a contentious issue with many grey areas. Surely where an article is the product of serious research and writing and addresses a genuine subject, inclusion rather than exclusion is justified. I also further note that some of the Wikipedians voting for deletion seem to be prominent advocates of deletion of many articles, and I am troubled that people would want to go around destroying the legitimate work of others. --SilverWings 13:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

comment One newspaper article is not "serious research". If it had been seriously researched and referenced I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of serious research therefore requires quantity rather than quality? That, in fact, seems to be the main thrust of your original basis for listing this article for deletion - that there wasn't enough of various things, rather than looking at the quality of what was there. My own view on life leads me to look at how full the cup is, rather than how empty, and this of course leads me to be an Inclusionist rather than a Deletionist. There are really two issues going on here, and I think they need to be kept separate: (1) the quality (or quantity?) of referencing, verifiability etc; and (2) the notability / worthiness of the subject for inclusion no matter what the nature of the referencing. I have addressed both of these above, and won't labour the point further. Sarah Ewart, I don't see that your comment here adds anything to what you have already said, does it? --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Featured heavily in state papers at the time; these articles may not have online references. In any case, neither count of newspaper articles nor Google hits define notability. - Synapse 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional: Victorians should remember the more recent case of Karen Louise Ellis, which was very similar and was the subject of much debate in Victoria. - Synapse 06:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

comment And the Ellis case received extensive verifiable news coverage. The Ellis case gets thousands of relevant Google hits. This gets two. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, verifiability seems to require, by this standard, a certain quantity of sources without much regard for the quality of the sources. Remoteness in time is an adequate explanation for the comparative dearth of material on Choat compared with Ellis; historians constantly face this issue, and historical writing may be validly based upon a single source provided the source is comparatively reliable. The front page of the Queensland state newspaper would seem to be as reliable a source as could be under the circumstances, save possibly access to court papers which, given the nature of the case, are unlikely to be publicly available. --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Newsworthy. Oarias 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. She's not individually notable. I would however be perfectly happy for all of these to be merged into a summary article on female sex offenders in Australia as there is undoubtedly some good writing here. --kingboyk 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The Choat case is a vital link in any comprehensive treatment of the subject of sexually predatory female school teachers, and if it is deleted the remaining articles on the subject become less meaningful. I would not necessarily be against the suggestion of kingboyk to merge the relevant articles into an article on Australian female teacher paedophiles (or a similar article heading - I would probably prefer 'sexual predators' to 'paedophiles', as I believe it is more accurate in describing the motivation for these offences, though it is longer), as I had intended (in time) to write a supervening article tying the individual articles together; it might be more cumbersome to have everything together in one place, but it might avoid the constant worrying over notability which is upsetting some of the deletionists. I would prefer to have the separate articles remain and to eventually tie them together with a more general article; but I do not live on Wikipedia, and this would be something which would happen over a period of time. --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This belongs on Wikinews at best. It's unencyclopedic, and in need of a massive de-tabloiding and NPOVing. Stifle 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While I, naturally, disagree with your 'delete' recommendation, I am willing to learrn and would appreciate any explanation you may care to make about your evaluations, in respect of how they apply to this article; particularly the terms 'unencyclopedic', 'de-tabloiding' and 'NPOVing' (I understand what these terms mean, but I don't see how they apply to this article, so would be interested in your explanation). Please leave your comments either here or on my Talk page. --SilverWings 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Snottygobble 04:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sarah needs to be more precise in her use of online search engines. I also found two more: [3] [4]. The second gives a hint at why the case is noteworthy, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I appreciate the interest and support of those Wikipedians and admins who see merit in this article. I want to stress that I have not contacted any of the people who have responded seeking their support, and genuinely appreciate the encouragement no matter the outcome. I would like to observe, by way of probably fairly final comment since the period for submission on this AfD is nearly over, that I do see the debate over this article as somewhat symptomatic of the larger debate in Wikipedia between inclusionists and deletionists. I wish there was not such a debate, to be quite honest. I would rather have invested the time spent on this page in more positive efforts actually writing or revising articles. The difficulty I have here is that, for inclusionists, we can spend hours on writing something only to have it destroyed in a moment; whereas deletionists will have no such concerns, since presumably they will stick so strictly to a narrower interpretation of what should be included that they will never chance to write something about a more obscure topic. (When I use the term 'more obscure', I do not mean 'less worthy'; it is simply the case that while, for example, John Lennon will attract widespread interest, Ha Ri-su will be of interest to but a few, particularly in the English-speaking world). Can I be really provocative, discover if deletionists have a sense of humour about their viewpoint, and suggest that deletionism is actually a form of legitimized vandalism? In case someone takes too much exception to this comment, I hasten to state the obvious, that I am speaking somehwat tongue-in-cheek there - and yet my feelings, as opposed to my intellect, resonate with my suggestion. The beauty of Wikipedia, unlike print encyclopaedias, is that we are not constrained by the physical size of the published work, and this site can continue to grow to encompass the full range of human endeavours, accomplishments, deeds and misdeeds as well as every feature of the universe in which we live. I therefore would appeal to those inclined to delete the works of others to re-think and to adopt a policy of "live and let live", and to delete only patent nonsense and material which is clearly false.

In regard to this present article, I would suggest that it has found a significant readership among those researching more recent such cases which have featured in news reports, and if allowed to remain as part of a small but growing project on this topic, it will continue to do so. By nature, the subject of female teachers dealing with their students in the way that this lady and others like her have done has an interest, indeed perhaps a fascination in some cases, for many members of the community. Readers approaching Wikipedia for information on this subject will find an increasingly comprehensive treatment, and as on so many topics, Wikipedia will be the first online authority, gathering information from a range of print and electronic sources and synthesising it in one location. I would suggest that a deletionist approach will only render more distant the day when online researchers perhaps no longer make Google their first avenue of investigation, but rather turn straight to Wikipedia. Is this not what we would want for this amazing online resource? This is only one article we are discussing, but I believe this debate represents much more. Thank you all for your time. --SilverWings 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough -- Ian ≡ talk 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as noteable. Google is not the be-all and end-all for noteability, especially in this situation. --Closedmouth 10:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as genuinely notable. Oliver Keenan 14:05, 19 March 2006 (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.