On 14/05/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
You appear to have gone off into entirely
unconvincing sidelines of
querulousness here. Is this still supposed to be a deletion reason?
My position is that it is imposble to write the article in a NPOV
manner useing existing sources. I have identified a POV statement
which it is unlikely that any existing sources counter. It is the
logical end point of that aproach
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting
views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been
conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views
should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all
significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the
most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular
view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is
the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." -
[[WP:NPOV]]
I don't see a problem with the stub as written. It has a reference
other than just the resort's official website.