Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Goddard


 * 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 per the BLP1E argument. Shame on the person who alleged homophobia. -- Y not? 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Helen Goddard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Helen Goddard is a British music teacher who had an affair with a female pupil aged 15, and was recently convicted and sentenced to 15 months in jail. This is not really a biography of her, but rather a coatrack to report her conviction.

A small piece has already been included about her conviction in the article about her school, City of London School for Girls.

Helen Goddard is only known for this one event, and we have a policy, WP:BLP1E, for this kind of case, which generally excludes biographies about such people. We have a guideline on those who commit criminal acts, i.e. Notability (criminal acts), and I believe that this article fails the criteria set out there.

A teacher having sex with an underage pupil is not rare, so I would argue against reworking the article into Conviction of Helen Goddard or similar. The burst of news reports about this case has been fuelled by it being a lesbian affair, and Helen Goddard being blonde and photogenic, rather than any serious lasting significance of the case. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition to the nomination: There are at least 1800 news stories about female teachers having sex with pupils in Google News since 1970, and none of the following recent cases now have Wikipedia articles, despite also having sex with an underage pupil: Alison Smith, Madeleine Martin, Bridget Mary Nolan, Karen Louise Ellis, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Heidi Choat, Cindy Leanne Howell, Jo Gorman, or Rachel Holt. Out of the hundreds or thousands of similar cases, the only articles I can find about women only known for statutory rape are Debra Lafave, Mary Kay Letourneau, Beth Modica Scandal, Janet Klatt, and Pamela Rogers Turner. Some of those have been deleted before or are good deletion candidates. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete classic BLP1E. This isn't a biography, this is regurgitated tabloid fodder trying to look respectable. Mr. Hed 01:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you seriously suggesting The Guardian, The Times and The BBC are tabloid sources and are ‘unrespectable’, quite an ill thought out and egregious comment. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this is the case with the reporting of this conviction, broadsheets are quite capable of indulging in 'Tabloid/Yellow journalism'. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether the content is titillating as Wikipedia is not censored. The only issue which might concern us about tabloid stories is whether they are completely fabricated stuff of the National Enquirer sort - Elvis sighted on Mars, &c.  This is not the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E, and the above comments. She's already mentioned in the appropriate article.Fuzbaby (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the coverage of her career in reliable sources is incidental to the crime she committed, so it's another clear WP:NOTNEWS. It's possible she may become notable in the future if this story keeps resurfacing, but that's not the case now. (If in the event that she does become notable, the thing she's notable for must go in the lead paragraph - and let's face it, it ain't that she's a classical musician.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename as Conviction of Helen Goddard. Sufficiently notable because of the amount of International coverage and debate her conviction has generated. Goddard is now unlikley to work as a musician again so no point in a Biography.Incidently The Times and The BBC are the best WP:RS there is, for current affairs and hardly "regurgitated tabloid fodder"!?? Like it or not Goddard is a household name in the UK for her 'crimes'. The case has been reported in over 175 international news sources and appears in media around the globe, and Goddard is a Cause célèbre in the international Lesbian community. Article is well written, not sensationalist, it is too much for a merged subsection on City of London School for Girls. Estragons (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is certainly true that there has been a lot of media attention to this event, but it seems to me that this is a "burst" as defined in WP:BLP1E.  The event itself is (regrettably) not unusual or "significant", Ms. Goddard appears to have no sources of notability other than in connection with this crime, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria set out in Notability (criminal acts).  In considering the balance between WP:BLP1E and the general notability guideline, I was guided by this quotation: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."  There are certainly multiple reliable secondary sources but I find myself unable to believe that this coverage is going to be "persistent".  If it does persist, I don't think there's any bar to considering this subject in a second AfD; say, three or six months down the road.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a repository for tabloid sleaze. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC),
 * Nor is it a place for your arbitrary moral judgments and prejudices. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't make assumptions about other editors' motivations. Calling the case 'tabloid sleaze' is not an arbitrary moral judgment, and while not the most well-described opinion, Xxanthippe's comment could be taken to refer to WP:NOTNEWS rather than a personal prejudice. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. More than a whiff of homophobia and censorship about in this debate (Tabloid sleeze...really?). News coverage in very serious sources is enough to justify inclusion be it a bio or reworked article.Archivey (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Homophobia? From whom? Please take care not to use too broad a brush when you refer to other Wikipedia editors. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked Archivey to strike their comment, but they archived my request without comment. I don't think the suggestion that homophobia is involved in arguing to delete is constructive. I can see no sign of homophobia in any of the deletion comments, and I would consider it a personal attack if you meant to include my nomination as being homophobic. Again, could you please strike out that comment? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. as Helen Goddard (child molester) please. Thank you HG
 * There is currently only one Helen Goddard on Wikipedia so no need for dab, and even if there was then the article title would be Helen Goddard (Teacher) . Laestrygonian3 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as justified by the sources; and expand the relevant encyclopedic  part, which seems to be more the protests than the conviction    DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  I see F&W has been doing some good work cleaning up other parts of the article. I modified my comment.    DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wondered about this debate, campaign and protests, so I dug further into the sources. They failed to back up what was claimed. Do a couple of blogs, right-wing usual suspect Melanie Phillips, and Spiked Online pushing it's libertarian agenda amount to a debate on the age of consent? Hardly. One of the claims about outrage at the sentencing was sourced to a ranty blog, the claim about male-female disparity in sentencing appeared in none of the sources, and the claims that Goddard has been lauded by gay rights activists and is a lesbian "cause celebre" are unverifiable, and the "campaign" to free her is a Facebook group with 100 members. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the article talkpage not cluttering up the add debate. You seem obsessed with getting this article deleted, what is it you don't like? is it Lesbians? Stop your ranting comments please you are annoying us and putting people off commenting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.133 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a far bigger obsession with Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Stop it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's twice now I've been groundlessly accused of homophobia. Charming. My opinion on why this case has received coverage is that the press find a relationship between a female teacher and student to be titillating, and they also tend to give coverage to cases involving attractive teachers. The case has no lasting significance, it's just the subject of a burst of yellow journalism. My interest is in correctly applying policy on biographies of living people, and I've also got an interest in people using reasoned argument at AfD. If you can't engage in reasoned debate, kindly leave Wikipedia well alone. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why wanting to delete this article should be considered homophobic. It is more likely that homophobes will want to keep the article on WP in order to expose the subject and her victim to on-going public obloquy that they may well feel the pair deserve - a Web 2.0 version of the pillory. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Rubbish, visit the online media, she is not being pilloried, quite the opposite. It is because Helen Goddard has support in the media and with the public that this case stands out from others. Incidently any reference to that support appears to have been removed from the article. People can draw their own conclusions as to why some people are so determined at censorship about the background to her conviction and that she is still in a relationship with her "victim". 86.145.90.106 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply to my comment. I am not sure what media you are referring to. The mainstream British media cited in the article do not appear to lend support to your contention. If you are referring to blogs, they are not considered reliable sources for WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
 * You are still insinuating other users are being homophobic. Next time I will report this to Wikiquette alerts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pointless comment to make. I cant see any personal attacks so you go ahead and report what ever imagined slight you feel. And report the editor calling Goddard "a Tabloid Sleeze" which is a deliberate insult, while you are at it. Threatening people to get your own way is also a breech of ettiquette is it not. Not that I'm in the slightest bit intimidated. 92.40.238.159 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I complain that my edit has been misrepresented by the anon. I certainly did not refer to the subject as "Tabloid Sleaze" (note spelling) and would not say such a thing about any person whatever their actions. I referred to the content of the article as Tabloid Sleaze, which it is. In determining the AfD, though, this is all beside the point. As many people have pointed out the article fails on WP:BLP1E and perpetrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
 * So be it. I have reported the two offending posts to WP:WQA. If you won't listen to anyone taking part in this debate about civility, maybe you can resolve it with someone impartial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first IP user is a sockpuppet of User:PODs Watch. If anyone has reliable sources for a campaign of support of Goddard, please include them in the article. Removing unverifiable material is not censorship. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, a pretty obvious WP:BLP1E. Is anyone actually claiming she is notable for anything else?  I don't see it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. ArcAngel (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AFD is being discussed in today's Daily Telegraph  92.40.95.114 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in a list of 20 AFDs, not discussed.--Otterathome (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete despite being hot, this is an obvious WP:BLP1E case. If her crime significantly influences a law (like John Couey), or she is in the news again for a completely different reason, then it can be restored.--Otterathome (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is notable for being a musical prodigy and performing at the Olympics, as well as this latest matter. We have plenty of sources which cover the topic and they cover the subject as the primary content.  BLP1E is therefore not applicable as that policy is for minor figures caught up in a larger event for which there is a separate article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she's not notable as a musician by our standards. We wouldn't have an article about her as a musician; she had received no press coverage prior to this case being reported in July. The only mention I can find of her on the web aside from this case is on her band's website from 2000: Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Estragons. An example of such is Caylee Anthony. So keep. -- A3RO (mailbox)  06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook ONEEVENT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly rename to event. This drew considerable press in US & Canada, transcends a local news story - Vartanza (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - serious case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everyone who's covered by the newspapers deserves a Wikipedia article; this woman was the subject of brief coverage, but has not yet achieved long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2009 (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.