Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plum Grove Junior 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 Redirect as not only has there been no actual Delete votes, but there has been repeated consensus before that junior high schools themselves are not convincing for an independent article, and therefore can be relinked to a closely related article (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  07:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Plum Grove Junior High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was not written by representatives of the school. It also is of local interest-does not meet notability standards.Nayakm (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. The draft article was submitted and accepted, and has been worked on by more than one editor. As I told the editor before he opened this AFD, having one of the editors decide to get rid of it simply because the school does not want an article is not a valid reason for deletion. It's not vandalism, there are no BLP issues, I didn't notice any copyvio problems, it's sourced... the only possible reason I can see for a deletion discussion on this article is that it might not meet notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a potential BLP issue with inappropriate material in a cited source but but it has been removed by another editor. Meters (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Score one for the inclusionists! But seriously, find an actual reason to torpedo the article and I'll reconsider. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems they found an actual reason for me to reconsider, so I'll amend my !vote to concede the point and support either redirecting or keeping the article pending a final tally on which position garners the greater support. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This is a junior high school. It does not meet WP:ORG. Per guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it should be redirected to Community Consolidated School District 15. The nomination is faulty in just about every way but that doesn't change the way we should deal with this article. Pinging  and  for reconsideration.  John from Idegon (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to district page. Changing from Keep to Redirect now that the nominator has changed the invalid deletion reason to lack of notability. The majority of the sources are merely school district and parents' association info. There are two major media sources in the article, but a nearly quarter-century old mention of a redevelopment project does not confer notability. The almost as old mention of the air quality investigation is potentially more useful for showing notability, but I would want to see solid sources showing that the investigation showed a major problem before this would be notable. Old buildings often have poor ventilation, asbestos, and other issues that need to be addressed. That's not notable. Parents worrying about their children's environment is not notable. Mini clusters of diseases are not notable unless they can be attributed to a cause rather than simply to coincidence. Since there is no mention of a positive result from the investigation I don't see anything particularly notable about this. Meters (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the air quality thing is interesting and different and would make great content in a notable article. Disagree on it's potential to show notability.  It's not about the school in general. It doesn't speak to academics, activities or athletics....In other words the things that make the school a school. The only reason it isn't NOTNEWS is the academic source, and I haven't checked the vetting on that. The Tribune is a more or less local source and what came out of it is not discussion in detail. On another point, I'd sure like to know how this passed AfC. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Even if the environmental issue were fleshed out to show notability it would still be about the building rather than the school itself. Meters (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to district page. There is decidedly something odd about this article. Even the claim to Blue Ribbon is untraceable in any official lists and the school web site itself doesn't mention it, which would be unsusual.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Majora (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator here seems to be blamed off-wiki for this article existing and being threatened with punishment if it doesn't go away. See User:Nayakm. --Closeapple (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be resolved already though: User talk:Closeapple --Closeapple (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2016 (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.