From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com JAY JG said:
We are at the stage where people are indeed adding masses of trivial one-line articles about schools, which the school inclusionists immediately describe as a "good stub with potential for organic growth".
This is a reasoned response to the few perfectly good stubs that I've seen listed for deletion, mostly only a few weeks after creation. In general the consensus seems to be against deletion of such stubs, even the tiny and almost useless ones like Mahajana school, about which little of value is known.
Well, to begin with, there's hardly a consensus here, and there never has been. More importantly, do you see the problem with describing even "tiny and almost useless" stubs as "perfectly good"? Jimbo's point was that we should accomodate good editors who want to write decent articles about schools. In his words,
"Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do."
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.
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.
Jay.