Theoretically yes, except that I would say any rebuttal rather than just a verifiable one. It is NPOV because it represents the average of all views that have been submitted until then. In practical terms that neutrality will cease as soon as one other person reads the article and challenges its contents, unless a visiting Beta Centaurian decides to get in on the act. A challenge to the system can be as simple as a polite request for sources to be cited.
So Wikipedia policies only apply once someone insists it does? I.e. I can keep an article about my random theory about Beta Centauri until someone comes to read the article and wonders "mmm, I wonder if this satisfies WP:V?"?
Once a request has been made for verification, the original contributor has the primary burden of proof, but that does not prevent others from supplying proof if they so desire. If the original statement is as patently ridiculous as the one you hypothesize, any attempt at rebuttal implies that there was something there worth rebutting, and the very act of initiating a rebuttal gives credibility to the original statement.
That's quite a statement. Holocaust denial, say, is often rebutted so does this give those claims "credibility"?