The crux of most POV disputes revolve around arguing what the NPOV actually is! So unfortunately I'm not sure that would really solve the issue. I suspect that

The crux of most POV disputes revolve around arguing what the NPOV actually is! So unfortunately I'm not sure that would really solve the issue. I suspect that attempting to do as you suggest would mostly lead to the spawning of more arguments ;) And at what point do you judge the point of view too marginal to be worth a fork? The point behind NPOV is not to avoid showing any opinion - but to show a balanced set of opinions, giving most exposure to the most widely accepted ones. In practice Wikipedia has already been "forked" by some POV's. For example Conservapedia, I believe, is quite active. It would certainly be interesting if someone put together a tool to compare several different Wiki's articles side by side. (FWIW I think we treat marginal issues very badly by stamping them out of content at every opportunity. Case in point is the 9/11 article which for a long time resisted mentioning that conspiracy theories about the atrocity existed... even to the extent of rejecting a "See Also" link to the article on the topic.)