Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leona Group


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The Leona Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Altho there are numerous (mostly negative) articles about schools operated by this company, I find nothing on the company itself. Indeed even the reference on the article is not discussion in detail but passing mention of two of their schools in a larger article about charter schools. As this company is not itself a school, SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not apply. Fails CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been some time since I worked on this article, but it sure looks like they're up to something in Michigan, even if they're not up to par. They were selected to run the Highland Park, Michigan school district in 2012 when a state emergency manager ordered it chartered — and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy still calls the district "troubled", and apparently they fired back at a 2013 report that accused their schools of being underperforming. The New York Times labeled them the operator of "some of the worst performing schools in Detroit". Raymie (t • c) 23:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the section "Criticism and school performance" is well sourced and this is information that cannot be found elsewhere on the company's website. The tone is neutral and sourcing is otherwise reasonable to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.