Deletion of St Thomas More High School for Boys

Comment: may I suggest that we are now approaching the |snow-line
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: A well-written article, amply provide with |reliable and |verifiable sources establishing |notability. Placing an sprotect and monitoring the article will address vandalism; deletion is a rather blunt instrument to deal with vandalism, sort of a "we had to destroy the village to save it" logic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: per .  There are plenty of sources, but what they show to be notable are the people that have passed through the halls, not the school itself.  Incidentally, to delete an article because of vandalism would be to give in to the vandals.  As important, an article's subject has no more control over an article than any other Wikipedia editor.  Unless the article invades the privacy of a nonnotable subject, the subject has no right to insist that its article be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I would personally prefer starting a new AFD for , since I don't think it should be deleted due to "vandalism" or "false info". Allowing AFD  be approved under such condition may set up precedents, allowing anyone who don't like a certain article to be deleted. '''Keep''' for now, then submit a new AFD under  if needed. Personally, I think it is notable, and should be keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)