I would argue that a Neutral Point of View is not even definable in most topics. More concrete, it is only definable in topics which are fully understood. You can write a neutral article about Maxwell's Equations of electromagnetism, because the physics behind is well understood. However, if the topic is about historical persons or events, nothing is ever completely clear, and interpretations vary largely.
Note that being neutral does not mean "take no stance". There is plenty of scientifical research to take a clear stance that Flat-Earthers are in fact wrong; rejecting their assumptions is still NPOV, and the only POV that is actually neutral.
But for most cases, things are more difficult. Major problems already arise with the selection of what to report. It is not only "lie by omission" - by the very fact that I have opinions, expectations about how the world is working, and a personal bias that addresses more importance to some events than others, I am unable to create a truly neutral version, or even recognize a NPOV as neutral.
Take, as an example, the Middle East conflict. I can report about poor Palestine children in Gaza, and show Israel only as a state with ruthless politicians that order military strikes and put people behind a large wall while continuing to allow settlements in the occupied territories. Many people will feel well informed by only seeing this, and compelled to root for the Palestine cause. I can also report about Jewish refugees from Europe that built a democratic nation with hard labor, and Palestine leaders that seek out to destroy Israel, as well as inciting young radicals to carry out terror attacks on Jews. People will still feel well informed by this, now rooting for the Israeli cause.
You now may say "so report about both", but this still is no neutral view. A third group might (rightfully) say: "This is only presenting conflict, but look how many people and organizations over there try to make a peaceful coexistence possible. You never mentioned them, you only view the antagonists."
So I compose an article that shows the pro-Palestine view and the pro-Israeli view, and finishes with showing how coexistence is possible. Am I neutral now? No. Now I have presented a story of how nationalists and religious fanatics prevent peace, and promoted the beneficial effect of tolerance - a classical left-liberal idea, but this is still ideology.
Note that even the order of presenting the events is of relevance. I could first present coexistence, then show the antagonists of both sides, and now I have subverted the message to the folly of trying to be tolerant in a cruel world. This is a nihilistic view - and nihilism is not neutral as well.
So by choosing what is relevant, assigning weigth to different events, and choosing an order of what to report first and what to report later, I already form opinion, even if I don't want to, even if I don't even realize. Apart from undebated scientific research, this is a consequence of our pattern-making mind we probably can't avoid.
To make things worse, there is also the Dunning-Kruger effect, which states that we are often unable to see that we are not competent enough to correctly evaluate information or situations. Thus we may recognize biases if they deviate from our own opinions, but we are nearly unable to recognize biases if they are in line with our opinions, because the choice of what to report, and the conclusions drawn, seem so natural to us that we feel that they are absolutely logical, rather than just the train of thought from an already biased start.
So - sorry, there is not much hope for NPOV reports about politics, history etc. due to our inherent shortcomings as humans. We can try to be as neutral as possible. We can try to verify as much as we can. But we will probably never be perfect.