Ed-
This issue keeps coming up, but the solution is always the same:
LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.
Yes, that is the basic premise of NPOV. I think everyone understands that. The problem is that NPOV is not very clear on other matters, such as balance and level of detail. So people keep arguing about the same things over and over again.
Articles often get listed on VfD because they (allegedly) *selectively* attribute points of views to their adherents. You know that you've started quite a few such articles yoruself, Ed. Similarly, in the case of the [[Mother Teresa]] article, I added a lot of critical information about her, properly attributed.
Many people feel that in such cases, the information should either be split away or removed, and only a "balanced" article would be legitimate. Of course what is and isn't balanced is different to different people.
Personally, I think that if the statements in an article are correct, encyclopedic and relevant to the article's subject, they should remain, and the article should be expanded (or summarized) by those who feel that certain views or facts are missing (or overly detailed).
Some people may feel that this gives advocates of one stripe or another a blanket check to insert their point of view ("propaganda") into Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed. Indeed it does. That is not a bad thing, though. We need to get away from the notion that articles have to be perfect shining diamonds at any given time, and if they are not, they should be deleted. That's not how articles grow and evolve on Wikipedia.
To put things into perspective, most of our information about foreign countries currently comes from the CIA World Factbook and the State Department. This information looks more or less NPOV, but it obviously omits essential historical details. For example, most of our articles about African countries make no mention of the corporations and banks that have business operations in these countries, or of the mercenaries they hire. Most conflicts are described as "ethnic" rather than economically motivated. There is little information about how governments and media are bribed into supporting pro-western policies. And we don't learn why western governments ignore (or actively support) genocides in some countries (Rwanda) and invent them in others (Congo).
Yet few people challenge these articles. Why? Because they're nicely written and look as if they are complete. Yet, in terms of true NPOV, they are among the worst material we have on Wikipedia. Even in these cases, however, I think it is better to edit the articles than to delete them.
Regards,
Erik