Many of these are cases of topics about which many people are too passionate to tolerate an actual NPOV article, and many others are cases of articles written by people too passionate about a topic to be NPOV. But here and there are articles for which a true NPOV status may be impossible because of something in the actual nature of the topic.
Jesus Christ is somewhere in the middle of the list. Technically, this is correct and NPOV; however, in being NPOV it has an implicit POV about the divinity of Jesus. Wanting the page deleted is also POV.
This is the most-edited page on Wikipedia. I think it raises a question about whether NPOV is possible in practice in articles that concern hot political issues. Theoretically it may be possible, but in practice there are problems stemming from the passion of those concerned about the topic. Also, these topics raise difficult questions about how to determine what is a reliable source in an objective sense. (Wikipedia's NPOV policy makes no claims about objectivity, but does assume that the reliability or unreliability of a source is a more or less objective fact, or at least something about which it is not necessary to have a neutral point of view. That is ultimately a problematic conceptual issue underneath the NPOV ideal.)
