On May 12, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
Context. It's the same reason we prohibit POV forks, but might perfectly well allow the same information from the POV fork in a comprehensive article that presents all sides. If all there is to be said about something is "It exists", and some very basic information about it, we should present it in the context of a more comprehensive article, not by itself.
Why? The reason we don't allow POV forks is straightforward - a POV fork, by its nature, is an attempt to end-run NPOV. The problem with them is that they are intended to be POV - and they do the job masterfully. The archetypal example of what is wrong with POV forks remains the festival of original research at [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] and its ten sub-articles.
No comparable problem exists with a stub on a minor New Zealand ski- field. Yes, the information can (and should) be contained in other articles. But if somebody types the name of the ski field into their search box, there's no reason to dump them at [[List of New Zealand ski fields]]. They want information on that specific topic, and to date nobody has given a persuasive reason why they should be redirected elsewhere.
-Phil