JAY JG said:
do you see the problem with describing even "tiny and almost useless" stubs as "perfectly good"?
Not really. A tiny and almost useless stub (look at most of the newer entries on "List of masts", for instance is perfectly okay if organic growth will occur. I have cataloged significant growth occurring on mast and school articles over periods ranging from six months to two years. This is clearly one viable way of growing encyclopedia articles.
Note that he is talking about a "good contributor" writing a "decent" article, one that is two pages long, with cited and verifiable information; in that case, we should "cut some slack" for the article.
Well we've got an article on the school he named, he didn't write it. The Epopt did in February, 2004, and he also went to that school). The school is one of few older schools I've looked at that show no organic growth (indeed it's now somewhat smaller than the initial draft). There is a very contrived link to Wernher von Braun (he lived in the same town, as did a lot of other rocket scientists, some of whom apparently sent their kids there).
It seems to be a completely undistinguished article about an utterly ordinary school. It comprises six sentences and an external link.
(Bs pbhefr jr nyy xabj gung Wvzob vf gur frperg travhf tenaqfba bs Iba Oenha.)
On the other hand these "School X is a school in city Y" stubs written by fly-by anonymous contributors are not at all what Jimbo was talking about accoimodating.
I agree. But I'm talking about what is happening on VfD *now*. We've got enough eyes and hands now that, unless someone floods VfD, such a stub listed on VfD tends to grow to a point where it evades deletion.
Thus listing school articles for deletion is probably going to continue to be a very frustrating process.