Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal School

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal School[edit]

Non-notable grade school. Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, main focus of the article appears to be rivalries with other local schools. TN‑X-Man 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It includes a high school, so it would seem to pass muster under Wikipedia policies about high schools. The article needs to be developed; as with Christian schools, this Moslem school is a private institution located within a particular school district, and may be one of the larger ones in the United States. Mandsford (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is mostly juvenile POV musings. What's remains does not indicate notability. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a Muslim school we need to know about them as much as we can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totopoprockets (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since it includes a high school, it likely meets the notability criteria. However, it needs to be expanded with impartial, factual, referenced content. The section on rival schools was rife with, if not outright attack language, strong non-npov wording. If a good article can come from this, let's keep it. If not, then let's revisit this if it hasn't improved after a month or two. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as not only containing a high school but as very unusual as a Muslim school in the US. Sources are available that meet WP:N and the way forward with stubs is to expand them not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable with plenty of sources available; I'll try and add some within a few days if possible (if nobody gets there first) AfD is not clean-up, this nomination could have been avoided by a Google News search. EJF (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per being the in depth subject of reliable secondary sources [1], the primary criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.