Should the dress-code controversy information that keeps getting deleted be included in the article?HabandMan (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This appears to be notable encyclopedic information about something that received national attention. Perhaps the content could be trimmed somewhat per WP:WEIGHT and ensuring the content doesn't say anything the sources don't say (WP:V). Also, the section shouldn't be so high up in the article, before Academics and other key school-specific aspects. The IP reverting here comes from the same area from Kentucky, so it's possible they are removing the info for whitewashing purposes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit - The primary issue being NOTNEWS. This is a more or less current story. We have no way to know if this will receive the widespread enduring coverage required before we include it. All of the out of town coverage seemed based on the stories in the local media. There is absolutely no reason to include the student's name. I oppose inclusion completely at this time, but even if enduring coverage ensues, it should only be one or two lines in the history section, not a separate section per WEIGHT. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a credible local news organization has discussed the incident and that credible national new organizations have reported the incident should suffice for proving the validity that the historical incident occurred. I understand the issue of NOTNEWS, but now that the Edmonson County High School has held a press conference discussing the controversy, confirming it occurred, and clarifying their position, I argue that the incident falls under the category of a notable historical moment for the school. The controversy material can now be edited to remove "alleged" because the School has verified its actions, so the controversy is not developing but has already occurred. Because the student herself and the principle reported their names voluntarily, I'm not sure why her name should not be included in the history.HabandMan (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit, per John from Idegon. Wholly undue to have a separate section, especially worded as such. In fact, all sources discussing this do not focus on the high-school itself, rather the headmaster and particularly the student. Let's wait for this to die down in social media and then we'll be able to figure out if and what to include. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is (one version) of the text in question

• Conditional support The source in the section above mentions 'national coverage' (said by the head teacher I believe), if there has been extensive coverage, a brief mention is in order. HOWEVER the text above is excessively detailed, written in an unnecessarily sensationalist fashion, and does not appear to be supported by reliable sources. A sentence covering the fact of the controversy and the extent of the news coverage should suffice. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Having 25% of the article on a 35 year-old high school be about a dress code violation that made (limited) headlines for a few days during one week in 2016 is a little over-the-top. Maybe this could be pared down to a one-sentence mention placed in the history section, using words like "the student" and "the principal" instead of proper names, as per WP:BLPNAME, but even that is a little iffy. LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]