Talk:Wayne High School (Indiana)

Article content
Sad that this article is 95% about athletics, 5% a list of a few alumni -- with nothing about academics, student activities, administration, etc. While athletic teams are to be celebrated, this is just pathetic. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed Wilson section
Honestly I don't believe this belongs as the article is written. Wikipedia is not a news source, and needs to avoid bias caused by overcoverage of recent events. I know there's not much information in this article as it is, but this really isn't something to which we should be dedicating 5 sentences. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded' But I think there's even more to it than that: the paragraph in question was added here by the now-indef'd User:Edmodo23... coincidentaly, on his on his User Page he described himself as being a teacher at East Noble High School. And the subject of this paragraph, Wilson.... also 'previously taught' there. So obviously the parties know each other, and there's equally obviously some history between them. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this news story is probably the only reason why this high school is notable. I don't understand why it shouldn't be included except that it isn't flattering. If a teacher had won a prominent award or a team won the championship, it would be noted in the article. I don't think we should remove the information simply because it is embarrassing to the guilty.
 * It also doesn't matter who added the material, it matters if it is adequately sourced and I can add many more sources to this news story if asked to. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All documented high schools are considered to be notable based on the coverage likely to be received, such coverage tends to be significant even when excluding BLP1E events like this one. I am not opposed to the inclusion of a mention of the incident, but -- like Mendaliv -- I believe it should be limited to a brief mention, and not in the lead. MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs mostly because of the undue weight issue. You are right, that this is pretty much the only reliably sourced bit of information we're likely to have on this school. For a variety of reasons, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES means that we keep school articles even when they're pretty much blatantly non-notable. Thus, we should be weighing this bit against not only against similarly sourced information, but against everything we should rightly have in this article, including the school's overall history. We really shouldn't be giving more than one sentence to this incident in light of that. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge of this article to Fort Wayne, Indiana, by the way. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Wilson is not the "subject of the article", the High school is the subject of the article. I also think it is WP:UNDUE to single out this one individual when this person received significant local coverage as well. And Indiana has had dozens of teacher sexual misconduct cases, what makes this specific case such a notable event that an entire section is devoted to it?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Excellent, excellent point. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point. Crimes are committed by employees of all kinds of businesses and organizations in and out of the workplace. That is not an indication of the company/organization and doesn't belong in an article about it unless it is a notable event and directly concerns the company/organization. This is not a notable event and the perpetrator is not a notable person. It does not belong. -- GB fan 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my comments at AN, not a notable event for the school (sadly all too common these days) and as an event of no lasting notability it hits UNDUE to include it - to the schools detriment. A good rule of thumb I go by is 'Is this person notable enough for their own article?' if the answer is no, there needs to be a compelling reason to mention them in other articles. And there isnt one here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Along with WP:UNDUE, we must also look at WP:LASTING consequences that would make it an appropriate section or paragraph in an encyclopedic article. In addition, we must also look at the current situation and on-going edit dispute between seemingly parties directly associated with this incident. There are agenda's being pursued here not at the interest of the encyclopedia, but ulterior motives, that we as a community have the responsibility to ensure they're not influencing the content. One way or another. As such, based upon the policy arguments alone, I do not see how we could ethically have this information in the article. Mkdw talk 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)