Deletion of Lin-wood High School

Comment:  is almost always completely irrelevant, other than to mean "anything I have decided doesn't belong on Wikipedia, for which I do NOT want to bother with coming up for a reason". In this case, you haven't even stated what part of  you feel this article violates
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I see you missed my point.  It's #3.  Wikipedia is not a directory of schools.  If they pass , they go in.  Otherwise, they stay out as directory fodder
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I think it is interesting that you support your argument against a guideline by citing essays, which are even weaker authority.  The policy in question here is not , but .   is a guideline used to implement .  Incidentally, a guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."  It is not something that should be disregarded just because an essay says its ok
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: I guess it's a lot easier to prove me wrong when you misconstrue policy and put words into my mouth.  The policy does not merely prohibit 'articles' which are themselves directories.  Rather, it declares that 'Wikipedia' itself is not a directory.  (Look above the subsection you quoted and you will see the following text: "Wikipedia is not a directory.  Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.")  Similarly, I did not insist that the 'article' is a directory of schools.  I argued that if every non-notable school is the proper subject of a Wikipedia article, then 'Wikipedia' would become a directory of schools.  As you can see, this is touching on #IINFO as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: You stated above that "'''The policy in question here is not , but .  is a guideline used to implement .'''" Which part of policy am I misconstruing and which words am I putting in your mouth? I can only rebut the claims you make. If  does NOT apply, then you no longer have an argument. The problem with your quote that "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." is that the policy then goes on to state what constitutes such a directory and none of the three items fit. Do you have any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment:  is a policy.  You can abuse it all you want, but we are supposed to follow it.  It is one of the rules of engagement here, like it or not.  The section of  which is primarily relevant here, IMHO, is #DIR.  This section of WP policy is implemented through the guideline of .  In plain language, notability distinguishes subjects worthy of articles from the sorts of things that one would only find in a directory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: Let's take a look at what #DIR actually says: "1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). '''No'''; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. '''No'''; and, 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. '''No'''" Unfortunately, humble or otherwise, there is no element of your referenced policy that is relevant here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: You just claimed that the relevant issue is #DIR, and insist that this article is a directory of schools. Let's quote #3 in its entirety "'''Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.'''" Clearly, it is an article about a school, not a list of them. I don't see anything that looks like "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, or programme lists" in this article. "Directory fodder" is just a rewording of "I can't come up with an actual Wikipedia policy that this article violates so I'm resorting to excuses." Any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per . This article needs improving
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Notability is considered a '''guideline''' not Wikipedia Policy.  Lack of notability is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions .  Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Many editors still consider notability to be a subjective . The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability , not truth. Wikipedia is not a matter of truth. Verifiability is an official '''policy''' of Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:JNN||WP:V)