Deletion of Wilmington Montessori School

Comment: I don't usually participate in school related AfDs and so don't have a strong sense of what consensus marks as notable in them, but felt compelled to point out that this one may be more notable than the average Montessori school as a result of its distinction of a governor's prize from the state of Delaware for one of its teachers. If the prize had been afforded the school, obviously, I could defend the notability more strongly. I have been involved in the article tangentially since I came upon it tagged for #G11 earlier today. I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmington_Montessori_School&diff=188594998&oldid=188594111 stripped it of promotional language and Talk:Wilmington Montessori School|advised the creator how to proceed under the |COI guideline. Since then, I have attempted to help him further on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:COI)

Comment: elementary schools really need to be exceptional, not just a good school (which I'm sure this one is). Obviously the author's counterargument 1) is of the |What about X? variety. Even if there are other notable elementary schools, that does not affect this one, and even if there are non-notable schools with articles, that does not affect this one. Counterargument 2) is more of a comment on the nominator's tone, but obviously saying there are many Montessori schools is not a criticism. There are many Montessori schools, a testament to their success. Counterargument 3) amounts to a claim that "one of the largest" schools is notable, which is debatable, but difficult to prove in any case. Being accredited and complying with the code are base expectations for such schools and not any indicator of notability. Counterargument 4) again invokes accreditations, but these too are not ''notability'' as such is available to many schools. Counterargument 5) involves the notability of a teacher, which may or may not exist, but in any case is not directly transferable to the school
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: It has been a quick learning curve since my first-ever wikipedia post on Saturday morning.  I agree that the NYT article on asbestos is non-notable.  I had previously removed that entry based on DGG's prior analysis, as noted on the article's talk page.  It was added back in by a well-meaning editor. I think that entry should be struck.  Also, I intend to strike the state-wide foundation grant refs, since I have come to better understand the importance of .  I think that the national listing that shows the school in the top 50 in the country alongside several very large organizations could probably remain.  Likewise, I think that the national grants/awards (Toyota/NSTA, ING) can remain.  After reading #Reliable Sources I am still unsure of the required notoriety of publications.  I understand the preference toward "respected publishing houses", but some additional guidance or comments regarding the use of the two separately published magazines would be appreciated
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: it is the subject of a significant published work and thus meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)