Deletion of Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

Comment: This is a useful article which is encyclopaedic, written from a |neutral point of view and backed up by |reliable sources. It therefore clearly complies with the Help:Five pillars|Five Pillars, the only community-agreed policies that really count. The school building itself appears to be of historic interest and is a listed building (see http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=328794).   is a guideline not a policy, but this article is also sufficiently well referenced to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Looking at the discussion here, and the sources provided, I think the article passes . Notability does not require that a subject by specially important relative to its peers, it only requires a certain level of coverage in reliable sources. The subject here meets that threshold. The article could be improved to be a bit less of an advertisement, but when an article is up for deletion it is understandable that every good thing about the subject will be toted out to increase notability, and regardless, the solution to a notable topic that seems a bit ad like is to improve it, not delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as per #Schools and , and then make a cup of tea, sit down, and reflect on why discussions like this turn into personal attacks, ad hominem, and nonsense. We all have better things to do than lose our minds over a school's Wikipedia article when the precedent is already set
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES||WP:ORG)

Comment: Article meets notability in , and . There's no evidence of  and there are more than sufficient eliable sources|reliable sources. I see a lot of shouting for delete, but no effort on the part of these editors to |convince others by using evidence. These arguments to delete seem to derive from attempting to discredit those attempting to improve the article and any attributed comments, and by cleverly equivocating so as to assert that they never said what they never said it said. Rather than making clear positive assertions, AGUEWAVE, , and  are being relied upon. I have no interest in this article, but this AfD is a disaster. Those proposing deletion need to be clear and precise as to their reasoning. Nowhere is this apparent. Special:Contributions/95.149.231.88|95.149.231.88
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GROUP||WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:ADVERTISING||WP:R||WP:CON||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:ASSERTN)

Comment: First of all can we please stop the shouting, e.g. "DISPICABLE BEHAVIOR!"; highly uncivil personal attacks, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWoodleigh_School%2C_North_Yorkshire&diff=489290209&oldid=489289711 this; and accusations of vandalism when the edits are legitimate, albeit controversial, disagreements over content and/or sourcing. Second of all, Yunshui was ''not'' the editor who nominated this article for deletion, and has currently opined a merge rather than a delete. Nor has s/he participated in the recent editing/re-structuring of the article or removal of its references, and has in fact supported the suggestion that the original references and material remain for the duration of this discussion. Thirdly, I don't understand the determination to delete Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils simply to |make a point when having an article on the Council is actually of ''benefit'' to the Woodleigh School article. This really has gone far enough, and I'm now going to ask a couple of uninvolved administrators to keep a close eye on this discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Notability in the Wikipedia sense does not mean noteworthy or important. It simply means that the subject has been noticed in reliable sources. "Notability" cannot therefore be conferred by a single source. The important point is that if a building has been listed it will have been noticed by other sources. In any case  is a constantly changing guideline but it is not official policy. The question is whether or not the article is supported by reliable sources as required by the Help:Five pillars. The article meets all the requirements of the five pillars and there is consequently no reason for it to be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to Langton, North Yorkshire - nothing remotely notable about this prep school. Most definitely a good example of . None of the references are from what could be called what |reliable sources. All seem to be from vested interests
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Advertising (WP:ADVERT||WP:RS)

Comment: Question 'A' is important, however.  Not a single keep !vote has supplied any evidence of  notability (and repeatedly claiming "Google search" indicates a fundamental ignorance of our policies regarding reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)