Talk:Desert Hills High School (Utah)

Unknown Vandal

Who keeps vandalizing this article?

Maybe it needs semi-protection

The DarkArcher was here 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalizing

It is probably Dixie, Snow Canyon, or Pine View Students. (Big rival schools) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.92.100 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of starter pistol incident

@John from Idegon: I'll have to review the notability guidelines again, but I'm pretty sure the death of Tucker Thayer notable because it was involved in a US District Court ruling.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Prisencolinensinainciusol: Possibly. But once you rewrite it removing all names, as no-one was convicted of a crime and it would be a clear violation of WP:BLP1E to name them, and add in the fact that there has been no decision reached in the case yet, just a remand to the court to hear it, and you really have no sources. The decision by the appeals court would be important in an article about the case, but as there has been no decision as to the adjudication yet, we have nothing we can cover here. BTW, I don't know what argument you got wrong in the ping template, but I didn't get pinged. I use {{u|John from Idegon}}. John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean I don't have any sources, there are plenty?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Prisencolinensinainciusol: I'm sorry. I guess that wasn't too clear. I am not disputing you have sources, just the usability of them in this article.

1. Please note that my main concern is BLP and to that end I have refactored the title of this section to remove the boy's name. I have also re-reverted your addition of the info to the article, per WP:BRD (noting that it isn't WP:BRRD). We need to reach a consensus, either between us, or with inviting others into it before we put it back.
2. Even tho the boy is deceased, his death is probably recent enough that BLP applies here. WP:BLP1E certainly applies to every other party you named; hence you cannot use their names.
3. The appeals court decision is a non starter. They simply remanded the case for a finding to the lower court. They did NOT adjudicate the school system as liable; they merely stated that the court was in error saying they couldn't be held liable. Since the case was settled out of court, there has been no adjudication of fact and therefore, as far as the facts of the case goes, there are none.
4. Altho this is "old" news, it is still news, hence WP:NOTNEWS applies. Part of the reason, IMO, for the existence of the NOTNEWS policy is that simply by enshrining a news event here in one of the top ten most read websites in the world, we are effectively making it history. That brings WP:UNDUE into play. Since there is no other history written on this school, mentioning this without other history to put it into perspective is undue. If there were a history section, I would not object at all to a line or two without names and with references discussing this in the perspective of a larger history of the school. If you would want to go that route, I have no problem with it, but it wouldn't be easy as the most basic starting point for a school history, their website, has nothing. I do not have the time to do any more extensive research than that.
5. School article guidelines bar us from discussing non notable students and faculty. The boy is not notable per BLP1E. The event may possibly be notable enough for an article, but again, in that article, everyone but the boy would be nameless per BLP1E. If you can manage to float an article on the incident (for which you could use the boy's name in the title), I would not object to a "See Also" link to it.

One further note. Notability, with some minor exceptions, does not concern article content. Notability is the standard for article creation. In other words, the subject of an article must be notable; the content does not have to be. Content is decided on a basis of policy, guidelines and consensus formed through BRD, like we are doing here. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that it was a real Smith & Wesson gun, not a starter pistol. Maybe that makes it somewhat more notable? Very reliable I know but I was told through reddit that the attorney for the family was going to reopen the suit, although I can't find any web sources for this.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WP:BLP1E only refers to the subject of a whole article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)