[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Philip Sandifer]

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