Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viera High School incident

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. Since this is already covered in the school article this fall's to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viera High School incident

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need an article for every somewhat salacious/scandalous incident which gets some media attention for a few days? WP:NOTNEWS/WP:CRIME intersection. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Sexuality and gender, Schools, and Florida. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's been three days since the incident took place. The Brevard Public School verified the said incident and issued a statement with respect to the Viera High School hazing incident. If you think that this article is significantly less important than other incidental articles in Wikipedia, such as The Trial of George Zimmerman, the Glenbrook North High School "section student hazing incident", Frank Pavone's "section sexual misconduct allegations", or the Ateneo bullying incident, think otherwise. Madutter (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Trial of George Zimmerman, really? Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about fairness in controversy and consistency, which is broad, let us include the trial of George Zimmerman. Your argument about this particular article being scandalous is argumentative. The Brevard County Sheriff is conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. It is indeed an ongoing case. The article and the evidence that is cited are certainly not hawsyaw. Madutter (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. An article has to be WP:NOTEWORTHY, notable enough that it warrants its own article (be able to stand on its own). If not, content can be added to its more related article. – The Grid (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madutter, Why wouldn't this be included in the high school article rather than being a stand-alone article? Why relate this to the Trial of George Zimmerman, which had nothing to do with a school nor simulated sex? It seems like a very odd comparison, with the only similarities being crime and Florida. Millions of crimes have occurred in Florida. — Jacona (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in Viera High School that talks about the incident that I added. In addition, @Fram said that this particular article is scandalous. It is argumentative. The word controversy, by definition, is broad. The point is that the Trial of George Zimmerman, the Ateneo bullying incident, and the Viera High School incident are three different incidents that were considered scandalous. Madutter (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? And Watergate was also considered scandalous. By your reasoning, the existence of articles on Watergate also somehow justify an article on this, right? That's not at all how notability works. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the source of the publication is reliable, independent, and treats the topic in great detail, then yes. Why prolong the creation of the article? Madutter (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME, and possibly WP:RECENT as well. If people are still talking and writing about this in a year then maybe we can reconsider. And personally, I don't think Wikipedia should be a stone wall where every troll, bigot, and bully can have their achievements engraved for all time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the criteria for a lack of integrity as an editor, let us remove "sections" that are scandalous across all articles in Wikipedia. I agree with you that Wikipedia cannot afford to have trolls. Madutter (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Viera High School#Controversies section. This meets WP:RECENT and might be worthy of it own article in the future, but can be covered as part of the Viera High School stub article currently, as is the hazing incident from Glenbrook North High School. Demt1298 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Ateneo bullying incident as an example. Yes, a section was added to the Viera High School that talks about the incident. Madutter (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing one article to a more-notable one also on a "controversy" does not make the former notable. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is argumentative. Madutter (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Viera High School#Controversies section. As Demt1298 suggests.

On side note would like to suggest Madutter to visit and participate at the sister project Wikinews, as far as Wikipedia is concerned they should reduce edit speed and study various policies other Wikipedians are suggesting. And also save own time by avoiding replying every comment here, that's not likely to benefit much. Bookku (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Delete - Seems to be information that could easily be contained in the school's page. Currently a local news story and does not merit a full article. Is also (as of now) written slightly strangely. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Viera High School#Controversies seems the most appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to merge. Maybe it's worth having this article in the future. Madutter (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and per WeirdNAnnoyed's comment. Second choice merge, but the content's already covered in the merge target others are mentioning. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.