Deletion of Brighouse Elementary School

Comment: Even if  is not official policy, it justifies itself on its page via existing policy. I would similarly like to point out that for people/groups and nonprofit organizations |bio (policy) and |org (active proposal), respectively, there are indeed demonstrated-notability requirements. It is thus disingenuous to say that notability is not a legitimate consideration when considering an article's deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:ORG)

Comment: Exactly which section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion describes your interpretation of NN and how it directly relates to deleting school articles?  Please recall that  is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: as part of the very active iC project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)

Comment: The article will benefit from improvement, and is clearly identified as a stub. I am most impressed by the level of structure, organization and thought demonstrated by the iC initiative and its team members, which makes it clear to me that the promise of expanding these into yet more productive and useful articles is eminently justifiable. I would like to suggest that other areas (perhaps organized by state in the US) would greatly benefit from the methodolgy developed as part of iC, and I will certainly take advantage of these concepts in expanding the scope of , which has craeted articles for most New Jersey school districts and a significant percentage of the state's high schools. Bravo iC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E||WP:E||WP:NJ||WP:E)

Comment: since |wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Moreover, eventhough this is not paper, my guess is that the number of schools in the world is so large that there is simply no space to have an interesting non-stub article on all of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: There appears to be an underlying agrument that there are so many schools that only notable ones should be included. Notability (or lack there of) is not a reason for, by itself, for deletion -  is not a policy nor is anyone elses acroynm that may be applied to test an article. The vastness of a subject is also not a reason to exclude articles,  makes the contrary arguement: "''This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.''" The only valid argument is the shortness of the current articles, which I agree with. There is an active project to create and edit these pages and I believe that we should be able to ask the indulgence of our fellow wikepedians until we can get all the information into these articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NOT)

Comment: This sentence is "bad faith" taken to a whole other level -- labelling the contributions of not just a single editor "flooding" and "cruft", but the entire wikiproject and all of it's members!  Certainly makes me glad to be part of such a project!  (Project=wiki as well as iC
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)

Comment: There are many considerations but it was sounding to me like notability (or not) was being used as the measuring stick to keep or delete. My assertion was that notablility is not a criteria in  and it continues to be used as if it were a offical 'rule'. If that is true, regardless of the effort we put into making it a better article it could still be the subject of a AfD request. That certainly puts a chill on anyone that might consider contributing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)