Deletion of Hillel Day School

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not an indiscriminate collection of information. How is it anything but indiscriminate if ''every'' elementary school is automatically entitled to an entry without any critical thought
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per above arguments. |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and elementary schools have miniscule encyclopedic notability. This isn't a high school
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Schools should be listed, in my opinion, only if they have certain achievements, impact or historical significance (per ). I don't find any of it in the Hillel day school. I also think that most of the schools listed in Wikipedia should be deleted, unless they meet these criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I must disagree on strong terms with most of what you say. If you hold the opinion that this article is being included while inappropriate less-notable subject are not, then I remind you that the AFD process is every bit as available to those other subjects as it is to this one. Further, I would like to remind you, after reading your accusations of this article being "left in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested", and how this is "deletecruft", of one of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding |assuming good faith of editors who disagree, and additionally the possibility that people who disagree with you might merely have different standards for what they perceive to be a subject about which an encyclopedic article may be written. There is a gulf of difference in the idea that there's some secret brotherhood of deletionists out to get all of the valuable articles, and the idea that a large portion of the editor community does not thing that a primary school with no claim to notability is not appropriate material for a Wikipedia article (see , namely "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NOT)

Comment: I disagree entirely. If by your above argument you mean that we should have either no or extremely lax standards that we should hold articles containing information, that defeats the purpose of having a level of encyclopedicness to the project. If having a standard, however, means that some articles aren't up to it, perhaps that implies that the subject is not appropriate for this encyclopedic project. To address the second issue, notability of a subject can indeed vary from group to group, and please take notice that in the essay on |notability, the fundamental policy is cited that one must have been the subject of |independant verifiable scrutiny, which this subject cannot claim- its verifiable source (the NCES information) mentions it only in passing and cannot be claimed to be solely a study on this subject alone. I agree with you that many of the subjects in the Schools category have a shaky claim to inclusion. If you feel this is the case then I encourage you to go through the proper processes and nominate the questionable articles for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: mdash; I'd speculate that the PROD was removed because deletion of well-formed school articles is a often controversial topic.  states the process is for non-controversial deletes. :-) &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)

Comment: A verifiable article about about a real place.  Meets  requirements as pointed out above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Some comments above claim that the information in the article is verifiable.  However, as far as I can see, the only attributed source that might help with verification is the school website.  The policy   states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and the guideline  states "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources.".  Where are the third-party sources that back up the various claims in the article?  I think that, as it stands, the article is marginal on policy at 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:RS||WP:VERIFY)

Comment: Allow for organtic growth'' and ''inheirently notable'' is are lousy arguements, '''nothing''' is inheirently keepable.  School/no school this is advertisement. As someone else pointed out, this is not a public educational institution, so its not a default routing point to an education institution as required by law just about everywhere in the united states. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: primary schools are not suitable for Wikipedia articles.  Not notable, |Wikipedia is not a web directory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: notability is not and has never been a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. |Verifiability is. All data in this article is factually verifiable. &nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: You're right, notability is irrelevant.  is an ''essay'' and "notability" is nowhere listed in  as a valid criterion for the deletion of a school article.  —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:DP)