Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metea Valley High School

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 (due to the addition of references that assert notability, not because of the "all schools are notable" argument) and discuss any possible renaming on the article talk page. Grandmasterka 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metea Valley High School

Metea Valley High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is for a school that had not been built yet, there are no refs or claim to notability killing sparrows 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the school appears to be in the detailed planning stages, and all high schools are notable, IMHO. Noroton 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that is not polciy or guideline, so it doesn't matter. I could say that no soccer articles are notable, but that wouldn't be good enought to delete them. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Obviously the school has not had MUCH history yet - but if you read through the links provided in the article and in the parent Indian Prairie School District 204‎ article, you'll see that the planning and acquisition of land has already been highly contentious. It took two ballot attempts on the part of the district to be allowed by its taxpayers to float the construction bonds for buying the land and starting construction. The district is still in an ongoing dispute with the lawyers representing the trusts of what's called the Brach-Brodie property; the former refers to the late Helen Brach (as in Brach's candies), who owned quite a bit of land just north of 75th street in Naperville and Aurora. Her estate has also tried to get the private Naper Aero airport closed down on multiple occasions, on the argument that its close proximity reduces the value of her lands (Lowe's, Staples and a Costco are on her former lands on the Naperville side of IL Route 59 now). These disputes are notable in the Naperville/Aurora area, DuPage County, and even the State of Illinois as the district petitions the Illinois General Assembly for "Quick Take" powers to seize the land required to start construction and open the building by its planned 2009 opening date. Sorry, but I see NO grounds for a delete here. --JohnDBuell 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about the fact that the school isn't notable? TJ Spyke 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete, this school (which won't even open for several years) is not notable. MAYBE in a few years it may be notable, but not yet. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment so let me get this right, I can't claim it's inherently notable (as I argue here), but you can claim it's just not notable? Nice little argument you've got there TJ. I think it can be assumed that the building of a high school will be covered by the independent press, and it strains believability that there aren't multiple articles somewhere about this school being built, given what it costs for a local government to build a high school (in my community, a high school was torn down and completely rebuilt for $78 million). The school will only get more notable over time. Noroton 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see TerriersFan has already added the articles. I should have checked first. But they're always going to be out there because high schools are just so notable. Yet another great job, TerriersFan.02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - already notable, with multiple non-trivial sources, because of the political controversies. With election candidates citing the School, people are likely to look the School up and we should have an article (as we do with other major or controversial building projects). As a 3,000 student high school it will be inherently notable (and if its not we might as well fold our tent as a serious encyclopaedia of record). The concept of deleting it now, while its construction is getting media attention, and then recreating later, is simply not sensible. TerriersFan 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the references. --Eastmain 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep According to one of the four referenced news articles (this one), the question of obtaining land for the school went all the way to the state legislature more than once. LastChanceToBe 03:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The notability is the controversy, not the school itself. Make a new article called Metea Valley High School Controversy, but the school itself doesn't even exist and has no inherent notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I actually wondered myself whether this might not be a better title. However, the practice in, for example, Category:Planned or proposed arenas is for projects that are expected to be notable (and even the most die-hard deletionist would be hard pressed to argue that a community of well over 3,000 people is not notable), have articles under their own names. One can look at City of Birmingham Stadium and Greenwich Arena for example. As construction progresses there will, doubtless, be a constant stream of media articles focussing increasingly on the School. I would not resist strongly if a compromise was suggested for the article to be moved to Metea Valley High School project (a better, more all embracing title than 'Controversy') with a fresh article being created (and no doubt debated) when the School is opened. It just seems a rather technical approach. The content, however, plainly satisfies WP:N and while I can see a logical case for a move I see no basis in policy for a delete. TerriersFan 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:N. There is no consensus that schools do or do not have inherent notability. We would need a crystal ball to know whether this school will be notable once it has been constructed and, indeed, whether it will ever even be built. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep due to notability generated by its controversy. Realkyhick 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of the controversy surrounding it. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep worthy of keeping - non trivial sources, seems notable SMBarnZy 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Good start on a legitimate topic. Cloachland 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Regarding notability: The Indian Prairie School District is one of the largest in Illinois - the two primary communities it serves are the second largest (Aurora, population approx 157,000) and fourth largest (Naperville, population approx 140,000). While these are NOT the only districts for these communities (Naperville has one other, and Aurora has two), Indian Prairie has been the one experiencing the most growth over the last 15-20 years. Any arguments made that the school itself is not notable I really take issue with, because the entire controversy is being fought over the school's existence. If for some reason the project should never get started, or indeed, FAIL, yes I could easily see making a "Controversy" or "project" page, but I have never known any Chicago area school district to NOT complete a project (just leave them vacant, for a time). I realize that even having this article at all, more than two years before the planned opening (a date which will very likely slip), is seen as a bit premature, but as has been pointed out, building projects yet to begin or which may never begin still have their own articles, and under the name of the building as it has or would have been planned - three area examples are 300 North LaSalle, under construction, and 29 South LaSalle and the Chicago Spire, both of which may never see the light of day. It's also not unheard of to have school articles created before the actual school opens, as in the case of Plainfield North High School (although that was a case of a few months rather than 2+ years), yet that article has not been challenged while the school still has not been filled to full enrollment, and has yet to be fully accredited for sports or have a history of achievement exams. --JohnDBuell 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well the article has refs so it now meets WP:V and it also passes WP:SCHOOL.Tellyaddict 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - References, political issues/ballot measures meet WP:V. Notability established. Ronbo76 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Good citations and interesting article. Smee 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep has several references and is notable enough. LordHarris 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A thoroughly-documented article providing ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate Notability. Alansohn 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, school is not even open until 2009/2010. The controversy seems to be primarily covered by local news and a blog -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — School is not yet open, so I'm avoiding support for now. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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.