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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Coonley School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatant spam, speedy contested. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see what's so blatant about the spam. It seems to be a regular school, but it was even designated a historic site. I will change my vote if I see some better arguments for deletion. xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per notable awards added to article with references. Accurizer 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are 100s of others no more important than this. DGG 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's not a valid argument for keeping. Rather, it's an argument for deleting those hundreds of others. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counter-Comment - It's not an argument for either. If it were, we'd delete all but the single most important article on WP! →Bobby← 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. School is notable and has recognisable awards. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, school has won an award and it's designated a historical site. I don't see why that would be spam. The article needs to be formatted and cleaned up, but that's it. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is a viable school. If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pointing to a record of "successes" (many of them kept by older, less stringent criteria than what is usually accepted today) is highly misleading. We also didn't worry much about spam or trivial subjects two years ago. Standards change, and in the last several months, there has been, in fact, a large (and fairly successful) movement to delete or redirect school articles that are merely stubs. Neither of the proposed school notability proposed-guidelines (either WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3 which I favor) has reached consensus. In the absence of specific guidelines, we don't keep everything, we go with more general guidelines, like multiple, independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I can point you to dozens of school articles that were deleted or redirected in the last month alone. That said, this looks like a fairly decent article compared to the typical piece of school-spam (and so I'll vote Weak Keep), but as a general argument, your argument fails completely! Xtifr _tälk 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's a breakdown of every school AfD that originated in November and has already been closed (this is a simple count of closed discussions on the schoolwatch, not including DRV discussions): 29 articles were deleted or deleted and recreated as redirects, 19 were no consensus (and defaulted to keep), and 18 were outright kept. Thus, there's absolutely no consensus whatsoever, and any record that is thought to exist clearly does not. -- Kicking222 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a notable Blue Ribbon School with lots of potential for expansion. --Howrealisreal 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encyclopedic content. StayinAnon 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we at least agree that it needs a rewrite? It's bragiing about its selectivity! -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite. Most articles about elementary schools are deleted. The notability of this school appears to arise from the fact that it is private. Not a very fair basis. Since it is a historice site, the article should be architechtural in nature, as opposed to bragging about how selective it is. Nlsanand 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand HoratioVitero 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on awards. The "designation as a historical site" was performed by the Downers Grove Historical Society, so is not itself an indication of noteworthiness beyond a purely local level. It also appears to have been awarded purely because of the school's centennial. [1] Article does require cleanup, per above, but that is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Shimeru although note that the school building was designed by Frank Loyd Wright which is another claim of notability. JoshuaZ 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, read more closely. The school building was designed by one of Frank Lloyd Wright's students. The article doesn't even name him. Shimeru 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I've struck out my above comment. JoshuaZ 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple awards and being designated as a historical site make this an open/shut case. Silensor 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Just H 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or completly rewrite. It is unquestionably notable on a local level (as are most schools) but notability on a local level is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise just about every shop on every high street would merit an article. I am not convinced about its notability in the grander scheme of things, although others apparently are. If this is kept, the article needs a complete rewrite to become an encyclopaedia article rather than a brag list. It needs to explain the awards it has received, who from and why it won them. It also needs to explain anything else that makes it more notable than A.N. Other school - there are a lot of successful selective private schools out there, so this alone is not reason enough for an article. Everything must also be backed up by reliable sources. Thryduulf 22:37, 1 December 2006 (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.