Deletion of Oakhill Christian School

Comment: It is a stub article which has 3 independent sources. That already complies with ; at the very least we should give editors a chance to flesh it out and add further sources as needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'd feel a lot better about these assertions of consensus if you could point to a policy, guideline, or talk page discussion as evidence. Even then, |consensus can change. Special:Contributions/71.139.142.132|71.139.142.132
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: I have yet to see a single call to keep this article address a concern I raised regarding accreditation.  For those that may have missed it, I will again point to this clause in Wikipedia:Notability (high schools); "''To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body.''"  If this cannot be rebutted, then this article fails the HS notability guideline, which is what the claimed "we have always agreed that high schools are notable"  agreement rests upon.  The only other avenue for retention then rests on the |general notability guide, but thus far only brief blurbs about sporting event scores and a laptop giveaway have been unearthed.  This is far below the GNG standard of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Thankfully AfDs are not head counts, and the eventual closing admin will note that the claims that the GNG is met ring hollow, and that the "it is a High School, therefore keep" are false, as it fails the HS guide.  Thus far, this is a slam-dunk deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: No evidence of accreditation. Both the http://eab.state.wi.us/search/searchresults.asp?searchText=oakhill&Search=Search Wisconsin Educational Approval Board and Tarc's post raise some interesting issues about whether or not this school actually passes  guidelines. Definitely doesn't meet the depth of coverage guidelines in  based off merely relisting stats off of a scorepage in a full sentence. The military computer donation is the only piece that I would consider enough to squeak by as a reliable third party source, but even then, it doesn't impart any sense of notability for the school other than they applied for a program and got it... Doesn't really show anything about academics or qualities of school that are worth reporting on. In lieu of evidence of accreditation (heck, even the http://www.wacschools.org/members.html Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools no longer lists them), I see no meaningful content to keep. If someone can prove otherwise, I will gladly swap my vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NHS||WP:ORG)

Comment: From |the ''essay'' people are relying on to vote keep: "In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were commonly unable to independently verify much more than the school's existence, and sometimes not even that much." Existence alone is not enough. Saying "we've done it in the past" is not an argument if not supported by policy (related to ). Also from , as already quoted above, "To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." So even if more than existence could be determined by independent secondary sources, it may not qualify as a "high school." When I was a kid I knew a homeschooling family who half-jokingly referred to their home as the "street they lived on school." To hear the way people are talking about the notability of high schools, if a local homeschooling magazine mentioned this "school," and it happened to be home to a 9th grader, it would be on Wikipedia. --&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NHS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NHS)

Comment: WP:NPASR&nbsp; #1: "the nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion".&nbsp; XfD is not an RfC biased with a !vote to delete and without an argument for deletion.&nbsp; WP:POINT: Nominator stipulates in the nomination that the topic is notable, and then !votes to delete.&nbsp; Stating that this is somehow procedural has no standing, the nom is still a !vote to delete.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet . We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Clearly a non notable school. Yes these type of schools can be notable, however this one fails our |General Notability Guideline by a country mile. School notability guidelines do not notability guidelines do not overrule GNG, they are simply a presumption that secondary schools should be able to meet GNG. This one cant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or preferably '''merge and redirect''' to the city's section on education because we don't have '''significant coverage''' of the '''school itself''' in '''third-party''' reliable sources, which is required by the policy at erifiability so that |we could actually write an entire article that contains more than just what the subject says about itself, which in turn is required by the  policy.  We haven't found of have anything about the school that isn't in the small local newspaper, which is a violation of  (which has explicitly included schools and other educational institutions for years).  I know that there are a handful of (almost always younger) editors who want to believe that anybody who claims to issue diplomas that they label "high school" deserves to have an entire article about it in Wikipedia because they're just so terribly important to high school students.  I know there are people who are just sick of the disputes and so vote to keep all "high school" articles in the belief that suspending good judgment will make it go away.  But just like the essay at NHS says, an '''unaccredited''' "high school" that graduates a couple of students a year is little more than a home school, and without '''independent''' sources, we can't actually write a balanced article.  We should no more keep this article than we should keep one on "WhatamIdoing's Ballet High School
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:WHYN||WP:NPOV||WP:ORG)