User talk:Ed Poor/NPOV

If a page remains on a hopelessly POV version for several weeks, with no history of a cleaner nicer version, and no user noting the POV knows the subject well enough to clean it up(this happens less than POV deletions), then it's in wikipedia's best interest to delete. We'd be much better off waiting for the article to be made again. In fact, red links can encourage editing more than a blatantly POV page would. However, NPOV needs to addressed in cases where it can be. i kan reed 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that in cases like this, you can usually make the article neutral (even if it means turning it into the barest stub) as long as the topic of the article is legitimate. Friday (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless it's so far outside your expertise that you have to worry about introducing factual error. but I agree, cases like this are 1 in 10,000.  i kan reed 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)