Peter Jacobi wrote:
There are even topics so obscure ([[New Kadampa Tradition]] comes to my mind), that only vocal opponents and vocal proponents contribute. Should they already be considered "interested parties"? Shall we hope, that they will battle it out so that the result is NPOV?
The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work.
I would prefer to have no article on [[New Kadampa Tradition]] than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me.
What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.