Deletion of Chester Hill High School

Comment: obviously; not only a high school but sources are available that meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Seems to be a well written and encyclopedic article to me that meets  in citing multiple independent sources appropriately. While I respect that the nomination was in good faith; I really don't see the need for deletion. At the absolute worse a merge and re-direct could occur - but I don't see the need for that either. OTNEWS is important, but it is pretty clear in the article with the sources used that security deserves at least a mention. NC means that  is mostly irrelevant to individual sections or sentences of an article (though , ,  e.t.c are not), and content can be added which does not directly add to notability such as primary sources to add context. Only the article as a whole usually needs to meet , and I am quite confident this article does, like most high school articles should do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NNC||WP:V||WP:UNDUE||WP:OR)

Comment: There are adequate secondary sources for a , ,  article and those are the content policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: This was not a bad faith nomination (I'm totally in disagreement with one or two above on this) and schools are not inherently notable - however, in Australia independent and reliable sources exist which would, on the basis of , give public high schools in metropolitan areas sufficient notability to pass AfD. (The same does not usually apply to public primary schools, where non-self-published sources may simply tell us it exists and little else.) Editors should be careful to avoid |crufting up such articles and any editor can remove unsourced content, original research or unencyclopaedic content, but that is a matter for maintenance, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SCFT)

Comment: per  and #NEWS due to the lack of sources about the school having any particular significance - notability isn't inherited from the State's Governor visiting once (Australian state governors are unelected figureheads of little real importance, and spend most of their time visiting schools, opening festivals, presenting awards and the like) and the other news is totally routine and not sufficent to meet the guidelines.  failed to obtain consensus and is a failed proposal by the way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:NOT||WP:SCHOOLS)

Comment: Nominating user is '''censoring and removing comments'''http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chester_Hill_High_School&diff=248347111&oldid=248346499 in the AFD that don't go his/her way in an effort to skew this AFD's discussion in their favor. The nomination has an extremely |weak rationale. Notability of subject has been established. An administrator needs to get this user in check immediately
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: As a secondary school, there are a number of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion|alternatives to deletion, including expansion, tagging the article for improvement, or at least redirecting to its school district. In my opinion, the deletion of reliably sourced material is a problem in a deletion discussion because Wikipedia:Reliable sources is one of the primary Wikipedia:Deletion policy|reasons for deletion. Whether or not that material is random, appropriate, or non-encyclopedic should be left for editors at an Afd to decide for themselves.  and #NEWS are listed, but I do not see where it says high schools do not meet those guidelines, or that a high school must be listed a certain number of times at Google News. Simply put, I believe the article can be fixed through normal editing, and is therefore not a good candidate for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:NOT)