Deletion of Machon chana

Comment: specific claims of notability and now meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Sorry to say that the school makes no claim to otability|Notability in either the article and or in any information I could find as shown here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Machon+chana%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives.  In addition, I believe what is currently posted is nothing more than the opening statements of a formal Content of a business plan|business plan (Executive Summary – Overview – Mission Statement).  Which if this is the case, probably constitutes pam|Spam.  Either way, looks like delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:S)

Comment: still hasn't established notability. Claims to be unique as "''one'' of the first...". D'uh, that's not what unique means. And a couple of lengthy quotes doesn't establish the sort of base of coverage that  requires. It's just one school among many as far as I can see
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Agree that after improvements adequate sources have been found and the article meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: As always, the |notability criteria have to be satified. The relevant guideline is . Suggest that the article's authors take a look at the guideline and see what's required. The general minimum requirement for having a Wikipedia article about an organization is that the organization needs to have "significant coverage" by independent |reliable sources. Please see the guideline for additional information. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ORG||WP:RS)

Comment: Editing issues should be solved by editing, not deletion. In the spirit of , I've rewritten the article to be a neutral, verifiable stub. I have no idea whether the school is notable, which is about the only possible deletion reason I see
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: unencyclopedic rambling. Wasn't even terribly clear to me what the subject of the article actually is. ( seems to be an issue too - see the talk page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Sorry, but it still fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)