This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As seen in this revision and others, over the past couple of days, anonymous editors have added information about recent events at the school concerning suspensions for sharing nude photos. While the information was sourced, it was sourced to local outlets, and local stories about schools happen all the time. So do suspensions. So do messages from the school district to parents. It is almost akin to non notable threats to the school that blow over within a couple weeks and leave no lasting impact. None of these things make it notable merely because it happened. I am of the opinion that this is purely WP:NOTNEWS and should not stay on the page. After using up my three reverts for today and explaining my rationale on one IP's talk page, I have brought the dispute to the article's talk page. I have received no rationale from the IP besides the fact that the information was sourced. Pinging John from Idegon to have his thoughts on the matter, he's very experienced in situations like this. I hope we can gain consensus, and if the consensus is against my opinion with valid explanation, I will not fight it. Regards, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!)
I agree, Willsome429. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is far more WP:MILL than we want to know. Unless this event turns into a first amendment issue, or for some other reason becomes more important, it shouldn't be here. In order to convince me it does, I'll need to see some things. First, I'll need to see detailed coverage that is both ongoing and widespread in reliable secondary sources. Second, that coverage must show that the school was involved somehow. This article is about the facility and the institution, not the people associated with it. There should also be some indication of the impact this had. To the school. Or to the community. Since we cannot even use "had" legitimately when discussing this, clearly we cannot do that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Following he post on WP:WPSCHOOLS Can I concur, then add a few general points. No member of staff was involved, there were no criminal prosecutions- there is no story. This qualifies as a student prank and as such WP should not touch it. I followed the references given and one confirmed something had occured and reported procedures were being followed- this fell well below the level neded for inclusion. The second reference blocked me and my ip, because the contents of the article breached EU data privacy laws (this is a first for me- and suggests that childrens' names or addresses were in the text). Publishing would become a protection issue for WP too under EU thinking.
But for a moment lets imagine that there had been a real protection issue and consensus was that it must be included. The place to put it is a section called 'Controversy' which goes at the end. We do not use emotive words like scandal. Pay attention to WP:UNDUE, WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI. The article is too weak to take all that extra text and should be rewritten first. Excise the lists of clubs, and add the missing sections and bolster the section on academics. ClemRutter (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
