On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
We work with what our sources have. I have not heard of any articles being deleted because only one point of view was presented in all the existent sources. That is sort of like saying we should delete [[Malaysia]] because we don't have sources to counter the assertion that Malaysia is a federal state.
Anyone reading this and the encyclopedia get the sense that sourcing/alternative POV obsessions are starting to reach the [[Adrian Monk]] level of anal retentivness?
What harm comes from a 1-3 sentence stub about a chalet on a hill in remote New Zealand? The idea that it's advertising is absurd. If someone is going to Google Invincible Snowfield or whatever, we're not exactly *helping* their Google Rank anymore, remember? Hint: nofollow.
Inherently, all things will over time increase in notability. If not today, tomorrow, or next month, or next year. No harm comes from a non-controversial stub in the meanwhile. It could be a stub till 2009, or next week some avid NZ skiier could swoop in with a page of sources and build it to FA. Or, it could maybe expand to a decent paragraph in time. Either way, does it honestly HURT anything?