From: "Tony Sidaway"
<minorityreport(a)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.