Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible consequences of Kosovo independence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Let's address certain points. First off, the article suffers from POV issues in overall scope, not just within the article. On the WP:CRYSTAL arguments, strong positions were taken, however the following passages: "It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis", and the "extrapolation, speculation, and future history" clause refute the condition that it's properly referenced. Let's take a piece from the lead: "The controversy over Kosovo independence includes not only the legality of the declaration itself but also a possible partition of Kosovo and inflammation of irredentism, impact on the international rule of law, and whether it sets a legal precedent for other separatist conflicts throughout the world." To partly justify this section, a single source is used. The entire page reads like op-ed, which does not an encyclopedic article make. If someone is interested in fixing the CRYSTAL and POV issues, I will be happy to paste the contents of the page into userspace for drafting into The Kosovo Precedent, although whether or not that will be better remains to be seen. David Fuchs ( talk ) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible consequences of Kosovo independence

 * Currently renamed to . —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs)
 * Currently renamed to . —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs)

( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log) The article is thoroughly referenced, but at its core it's a speculative (though, again, well-argued) essay. It's not NPOV, because it only addresses negative consequences (it was titled Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent before I renamed it). I could just as easily make an article called "Potential synergies of Kosovo independence", but I believe they're both inappropriate subjects. Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to 'The Kosovo Precedent' as per the discussion here. 'The Kosovo Precedent' is a notable term with plenty of references and an encyclopedic article can be made of it. As mentioned in the discussion linked, there are plenty of pages where the term has been used in wikipedia and the article would no longer be orphaned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is, obviously, inherently not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and a different article in its vein is unnecessary. At best, its content may be merged with a current events section within the article concerning the declaration of independence -- but this article on its own is completely unacceptable and must be deleted ASAP and without argument. {Anonymous}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.29.19 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Here we go again... :-)
 * Too much speculation in possible future developments for an encyclopedia.
 * Too much POV that Kosovo independence is a bad thing. For reference, the previous AfD is here: Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence Here you can see that the editors who created and want to keep this article had originally called it "2008 wars of independence", and it has gone through a series of renames, "Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent", and "Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent". How are those for negative-sounding names? wars, military conflicts and crises. A clear POV. --RenniePet (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has signifficantly changed since, which you seem not to notice. Nikola (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Gary King (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Nikola (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the assortment of reasons I gave in the first AfD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "Kosovo Precedent". POV is a WP:PROBLEM, not a reason for deletion. This article has a notable topic, as established by reliable sources. If rewritten to include alternate points of view (such as those of independence activists, supportive liberal europeans, scholars), this article would not be a POV fork. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." (emphasis added). I think this article concerns credible research, and should therefore not be deleted on grounds that it is "speculative" (policy please?). скоморохъ  13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * POV is a WP:PROBLEM. Inevitable POV by reason of the article's title and subject are an excellent reason for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem...so the very subject of "The possible consequences" of a political event is POV? I await with baited breath your rationale for that judgement. скоморохъ  19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to make a WP:WEIGHT determination on hypothetical events, therefore any weighting on hypothetical events related to a political event of this nature is going to be POV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT refers only to viewpoints, so I fail to see how it is relevant here. Is an article on the possible consequences of Kosova independence necessarily from a minority viewpoint? Absolutely not; there is no reason why the article could not include majority viewpoints on the consequences. Please explain your comment. скоморохъ  19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep POV issues are not a reason for deletion, and there's plenty of academic sources on the subject to make a nice article. User:Krator (t c) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, polemical, speculative. Lantzytalk 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Speculative and crystal balling. --Allstar86 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much speculation.MastaFighta (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit heavily to only include referenced content. Some of this is speculation, but some of the speculation is quite notable; for example, the speculation about the precedent Kosovo independence might set for Georgian breakaway republics comes mainly from widely reported comments that Russian officials have made publicly. --Delirium (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Isn't there some limit as to how often could an article be proposed for deletion? Also, today this article is further away from being just speculations than when it was first proposed for deletion. Nikola (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Commment Not a voting game. Matthew_hk   t  c  16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Interesting, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I made this point before, but there is no speculation here or a POV. It's all just referenced comments from those directly concerned about what they plan to do or what they threaten to do in the event of a declaration of independence. I can't help but feel that the timing of this, the very day Kosovo declares its independence, is not coincidental. However this article could be merged with the article on Kosovo's declaration of independence if that will satisfy.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * > there is no speculation here
 * Maybe this is an age thing, but after a long life of experience I have a very simple definition: if it's about the future, it is by definition speculation
 * No matter how many references you show, no matter how many people promise that this or that will happen, it is the future and therefor it is not known for sure, i.e., it is speculation --RenniePet (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy: "we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." скоморохъ  17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete NPOV, and is also almost all speculation RogueNinja talk  17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep For the many reasons outlines above. And additionally the article addresses a topic of great import. I would support consideration of a renaming, if more appropriate, but do not take a strong position on that point. Josephf (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --FOo (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. The concept is encyclopedic, it's well-sourced and likely to become more factual and less prophetic in the next days and weeks. — Nightstallion 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - "More likely" means that right now, it IS speculation, and should be deleted. RogueNinja talk  18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as there will be some sort of reaction to the Kosovo separation. Cwolfsheep (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - "When there is, feel free to write an article on it." RogueNinja talk  18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, speculation about something that has not happened. However the article has some useful content that can be moved to other articles about this topic. Grandmaster (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - speculative POV fork. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. EJF (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename Kosovo Precedent. While this may be speculative at the moment, this will certainly have an effect at a later date. Lord of Light (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep I also would like to see the article renamed to Kosovo Precedent. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultra Strong Delete Irreconcilable conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. Just because you put a lot of words together and source them that doesn't mean the product isn't a pile of crap. --Lemmey (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong - it is totally in line with WP:CRYSTAL - It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. --Richardb43 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems a lot of delete voters would be satisfied with a renaming. It may be a worthwhile article, just in need of better identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Name: What part of Possible Consequences is not WP:CRYSTAL.--Lemmey (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what Qwertyqazqaz1 is getting at is that there would be consensus to keep the article if it were moved to Kosovo Precedent. скоморохъ  21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to 'The Kosovo Precedent' per Pocopocopocopoco. It's also well-sourced and futhermore, there are tons of article on the net and in the media that use "The Kosovo Precedent" ever since the whole Kosovo affair. - Fedayee (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the Precident cause I don't really see one in Kosovo. If this happened in 1986 yes, but after so many breakaways from Russia no. Similarly I don't see a Precedent in the smaller realm of Yugoslovia. Several republics have broken away from each other. --Lemmey (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the article itself on how Kosovo can set a precedent to other unrecognized nations. - Fedayee (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again those wouldn't be as a direct result of Kosovo but part of a larger fragmentation of the Soviet Union over the last 3 decades. Cyprus would be much more impacted by the on going EU-Turkey asseccion process --Lemmey (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo Precedent:Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, Moscow Times. This is not speculation on Wikipedia's part. It's in the sources, I suggest you read them. скоморохъ  22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All that those articles suggest is that people around the world watch the news. Any speculation for actual action of those based on the situation in Kosovo is WP:Crystal. Media heads like to connect everything and put it into pretty little boxes. Boxes that could kill you if you don't turn in for the 11o'clock news, but boxes none the less. Myth: Anna Nicole died of a drug overdose so thats a precident for Brittney Spears. Reuters: Here's a list of dead stars. Reality: hollywood types have been dieing for a long time. One is not precident for the other. --Lemmey (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow that. You asked what the Kosovo Precedent was; I showed you what reliable sources reported it to be. It has nothing to do with watching the news or celebrities. What "media heads" like to do is very important to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Regards, скоморохъ  22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent per Pocopocopocopoco. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article isn't supposed to be prophetic or making any predictions. It takes comments from the policy makers or implementers of policy on the specific issue of Kosovo and its impact for their area. Certainly when the head of the Russian Duma is talking about recognizing breakaway republics in Georgia and the President frequently hints at this it is not mere speculation, but a documentation of something factual and notable. Even if there was a POV that is something to be dealt with by edits. A few reports conclude Russia is actually bluffing to try and prevent independence. While it's difficult to consider this a notable perspective given the pervasiveness of the talks on a Kosovo precedent, it could be included to balance out part of this. However, there can be little doubt that those seeking recognition will try to use Kosovo as justification for their own recognition. There can also be little doubt about the reaction against such recognition, especially as it concerns Georgia and Azerbaijan. However, I think the best criticism would be that this should not be an independent article in which case I think merging it with the article on Kosovo's declaration of independence would be a good idea.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Content Probably rename to / incorporate into Kosovo Precedent. It clearly does not violateWP:CRYSTAL - It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. The future possible consequences of Kosovo Independence have been widely discussed beyond Wikipedia, by World leaders, and are referenced. There is no speculation about what has been said and "threatened".--Richardb43 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced, if a little slap-dash at the moment and plenty of useful information. Possibly rename alleged consequences of Kosovar independence or somesuch. I suppose that if Kosovo Precedent has currency, it should be the title per the most common name convention. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only speculations. It's like having an article "what if the sky is actually green" or "possible consequences of breaking intl. law/undermining UN". We should move the Intl. law section and various leaders/countries reactions to a new article, Reactions to 2008 Kosovo decl. of indep.. This way, possible consequences will be quotes, and not WP:SYN. adriatikus  |  talk  01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or other appropriate article. The article is fueled by POVism, but this is not a reason for deletion I think, rather it is a reason to edit the article and try to provide references to political leaders who talked about democracy or whatever.  We should keep only content which references political leaders or other important sources who talked about this issue.  It is not a problem to keep speculative content on Wikipedia as long as someone else outside Wikipedia said it, especially when that someone else is a political leader, as long as we provide a reference.  Another possible solution would be to move a heavily edited version of the article to Wikinews as a news story detailing what political leaders said about this issue.  NerdyNSK (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent. Well sourced and hardly speculative in any manner.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Disruptive article prone to lots of non-neutral POV on various conflicts. Atabek (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth has that got to do with deletion? George W. Bush is "prone to lots of non-neutral POV on various conflicts" - do you propose we delete that article too? скоморохъ 05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Major all powerful mega KEEP article is a clear non-violation of WP:CRYSTAL and could never triger and international incident ecause of its based, warranted speculation on matters of tremendous internaitonal import!!! AND wikiepdia is a soapbox for political leanings, rants, or other speculation based on personal opinion and reasonable conjeculations. Smith Jones (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the "political leanings" "personal opinions" and "wild conjeculations" of world leaders are highly notable. Wikipedia is not censored for the prohibition of international incidents either. The "baseless, unwarranted speculation" you refer to is professional journalism by the most reputable news organizations in the world - Reuters, International Herald Tribune, Der Spiegel, The Guardian,  Financial Times etc. скоморохъ  06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * strong keep per rationale of Devil's Advocate. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Rename per Pocopocopocopoco. VartanM (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Kosovo precedent per Pocopoco. The term "Kosovo precedent" is currently in use, as a Google News search indicates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete any article with such a stupid and Crystally title; some content could be moved into an article on the kosovo precedent but I think a lot would have to go and a major rewrite required --Pretty Green (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:Crystal Gnevin (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and our articles are supposed to cover only verifiable subjects from independent subjects. This is not the case. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal Ball. What's next? Possible consequences of Stephen Colbert being elected US president, Possible consequences of an alien invasion ? bogdan (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One difference might be that Colbert was not elected president two days ago, and aliens did not invade two days ago, but Kosovo did declare independence two days ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. And this is anything but a new phenomenon. Many nations across the globe arose in virtually the same way as Kosovo will. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, the title is quite frankly awful, but this could potentially be a decent article if its properly sourced. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep but rename to Kosovo Precedent. --Avala (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Kosovo Precedent-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP is not a crystall ball, merge the useful stuf with relevant articles.--Pejman47 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has nothing to do with crystall balls. It's about the voiced concerns and opinions of some world leaders regarding what might go wrong. It's criticism to the Kosovo independance, and there is no reason to remove criticism. --D3vi1 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin this comment was user's first edit. скоморохъ  21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent. Its sourced, factual info and surely is an important topic (possible for a long period). -- Andranikpasha (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article covers an important issue that could set a precedent, according to various experts and governments. As such, it is encyclopaedic. I'm fine with changing the title, but article should stand. Any problems with bias should be dealt with in the talk page, not through an AfD.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal ball. And if this article is kept, it might become a precedent itself, but for other essay-like articles for almost any political situation.--U.U. (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research.--07fan (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Speculation has no part in Wikipedia. The part of the article that is not speculation can be moved elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly speculative original research that violates the policy against "new analysis or synthesis of published material." • Freechild   'sup?   18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although interesting, I believe this article violates Wikipedia policies as it is based on POVs and is speculative. Yucina (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article would be better titled, "Bad things we wish we could inflict on the West now that our war crimes have cost us part of our territory." Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin this comment was user's first edit. скоморохъ  21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't. It was posted by an anonymous IP address and then the signature was changed. --RenniePet (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was referring to. скоморохъ  21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to be completely accurate, the anonymous user had 22 prior posts going back over 11 months, so it was not "user's first edit". --RenniePet (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be assuming the twain were one. Good-faith-assuming mofo's do not partake of such leaps. скоморохъ 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The comment was posted as edit no. 23 by an anonymous user with an 11-month history. That's a fact, irrespective of whether or not the person who changed the signature is the same person or not. --RenniePet (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool! Finally someone who has figured it out! (I knew there was a hidden agenda behind this article.) --RenniePet (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * RenniePet, I'm curious about you're take on this. Your comment sounds sarcastic, but Canadian Atheist Danes usually agree with me. And yes, I changed the signature. Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I found your comment very funny, and refreshing after all the bickering. And I think too many Wikipedians are taking Wikipedia too seriously. That's all. (For the record, I think this article should be deleted, as I've explained above.) --RenniePet (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename to Kosovo Precedent. WP:CRYSTAL explicitly permits this, and it's a much better option than the trash-heap for a well-referenced, well-organized article like this. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Kosovo Precedent. People above have made a pretty good case for this, which I don't need to reiterate. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'll admit up front, I am not well-versed in the deletion policy or the intricacies of this particular case. I understand that there are many problems with this article in its current state. Rather than arguing the policies, I will make a broader request: that the information in this article be kept, regardless of what needs to be done to make that happen. Let me make myself clear: this is a very important topic. This is what actually matters. A declaration of independence means nothing outside of Kosovo and Serbia; it is the consequences that make this big news. If there has to be a compromise on this article, then hammer one out, but this information is simply too important to delete. There are surely enough reputable sources to make this work. For starters, a good number of countries have declared what they will do if Result A happens and what they will do if Result B happens: take Russia as just one example. Reporting Russia's declared intentions is not the same as being a crystal ball. At the very least, the article should remain with nothing but a discussion of declared positions (though in this case, a merge would most likely be in order). However, as far as I know, quoting the speculations of officials and pundits is a legitimate approach to writing an article. In short, the article should stay, no matter what it takes for that to happen. If it needs to be renamed, so be it; if it needs to undergo significant organizational revision, so be it; if it needs a complete rewrite, so be it. Anything is better than a flat-out deletion. Again, it is these consequences, not the actual declaration, that will make this event so significant. Twilight Realm (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On one hand I agree with your well-written assessment of the Kosovo situation. The "Kosovo precedent" may well be a major turning point in world history, at least in terms of the last century or so. Hopefully, a positive turning point towards increased freedom and reduced subjugation of people.
 * But on the other hand I really can't see this article as having a place on Wikipedia. The whole tone of the article is trying to anticipate future problems based on what people are saying. What prominent people are saying now can be recorded for posterity in other articles that have a current events or political/historical slant. Not an article that presumes to tell the reader what is coming. --RenniePet (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not wikipedia's work to anticipate anything, as has been properly noted many times. However it is wikipedia's business to record that said neologism has entered common (at least common enough to be notable) usage. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes. But this article was created by editors who had a hidden agenda, and who would love to tell us how awful it is all going to be.
 * Quote: "Brittany, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales
 * Kosovo's independence may cause an independence-seeking wave in these territories."
 * No references, just a warning that the world as we know it is going to disintegrate before our very eyes, and it's all because we let Kosovo declare their independence. --RenniePet (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And as has been also properly noted above: POV is a WP:PROBLEM, not a reason for deletion. :-) (Also, there isn't a secret agenda). --Michalis Famelis (talk)  04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the POV taken or that its there isn't the issue here: the aritcle could say Kosovo will head the start of the spread of an Islamic state across Europe, finally defeating the heathen colonial scummers and it wouldn't matter in this debate; rather, the article, in its very nature and by its very title, will encourage biased comments, which is a problem. It also encourages originial research and an unstable article condition, all of which are considered bad things. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is still not a reason for deletion. Biased comments and POV pushing is something a lot of Wikipedia articles attract by nature (such as most of the articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example). As for original research, I don't see how this article encourages it more than other articles. It surely will attract its share, but that's something that will have to be fought off, not a reason for deletion.
 * My point is that, from what can be gathered from sources provided above (eg under Fedayee's vote), the term is an existent one. It may be a controversial or a cloudy one, and it may well attract a swarm of POV pushing and OR, but those have never made us hardy Wikipedians shy away. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - just a fancy list of other groups with secessionist aspirations, which I'm certain we have elsewhere (here). Too early to determine if the "Kosovo Precedent" is a neologism deserving of its own article (i.e. content that can't be covered in the article about the declaration of independence and the sub-articles for international reactoin); my guess is not. Savidan 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- see the official policy. Articles whose purpose is to speculate about uncertain geopolitical future happenings have no place in the encyclopedia. Experience tells us that they are often thinly-veiled POV platforms. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic (by whatever name) is inherently speculative, and no matter how many sources of speculation might be cited, it's still speculation. Let's wait to see what happens and document that. -JasonAQuest (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Speculative, unencyclopedic, chrystal ball, original research, tendentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. That is original research --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep + Rename to The Kosovo Precedent as per Pocopocopocopoco - This article explains a major part of Kosovo's alleged independence and a reason for a lot of countries reactions. Without this article a major piece of the puzzle will be missing - making full comprehension of the situation impossible.  Chris DHDR 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Biased, speculative, non-academic (as per the definition of encyclopedia), prone to vandalism.--Arber (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - There is not a single reason to delete it, except the fact that Kosovo-Metohija is Serbia and some people here find it hard to understand it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.218.75 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The political status of Kosovo is irrelevant to this AfD. Your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Resolute 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above. Speculation, blatantly biassed, etc.  Also redundant to International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which already discusses the concerns expressed by other nations.  This entire article could easily be pared down to a section on the international reaction article which discusses the statements expressed by several nations and wannabe nations regarding the Kosovo precident.  All of the "what ifs..." are worthless in an encyclopedia. Resolute 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is this? A platform for justifying ethnic separatism everywhere else in the world? Then lets also please include "the implications of Kosovo's independence on the separation of Hawaii" as well (Im not joking. See for yourself).--Zereshk (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's clear policy. Handschuh-talk to me 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Strong Rename to Kosovo Precedent per Pocopocopocopoco. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, which states that discussion of future events can be made so long as the editors do not include their own analysis. However, the article solely represents the view that the Kosovo Declaration of Independence will set a precedent for other independence movements and thus is not WP:NPOV.EdibleKarma (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (And I hardly ever express a deletionist view) The basic premise of this article is flawed as per WP:CRYSTAL. Some fragments of content might be used elewhere though. Greenshed (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the information is relevant the only question here seems to be whether the article itself should exist. Given the relevance of the information it would seem the argument to rename or merge is ultimately a great deal more reasonable than any argument to delete it. Honestly, much of this info is now outdated as it comes from before the declaration. Responses to the declaration with every one of these regions can now be given. However, it isn't suitable merely in international reaction as it really is a controversy in it of itself. I am also still at a loss how this can be accused of having any original research. All information is cited. I think outside of keeping it as is the only proper actions to take would be merging this article with another, most likely the one on the declaration of independence or international reaction to independence or renaming it to Kosovo Precedent, in that respect the page for Kosovo Precedent already exists as a redirect to the article. In a rename the information on Kosovo would most likely be best moved elsewhere. If the article isn't to be kept then a rename or merge would be best I think.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One possiblity is to have this renamed to controversy over Kosovo's declaration of independence or something to that effect and expand it to include other subjects. Then the talks of secession could remain largely the same but be part of the article under a section specifically for a Kosovo Precedent. The possibility of Kosovo being a precedent for secession is certainly not the only concern. There are also concerns about this deepening the rift between the West and Russia, reigniting conflict in the Balkans, encouraging irredentism, and taking away international law and effectively imposing law of the jungle. Each issue has a lot of ground to cover on it and positive and negatives can be given easily. There would certainly be less room for bias.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately this is an article of very POV nature and very speculative and made up entirely of opinions. This does not reflect well upon any encyclopedia. Khorshid (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-name to IS THERE A KOSOVO PRECEDENT? Once people turned it into forum for discussion, it will be only fair to offer pro et contra views with rational arguments acceptable for discussion of international law and relations topic. Otherwise, delete. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Holy cow, POVania. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Crytall ball issues, yes, but the subject is widely discussed by political scientist and press, and there seem to be credible, reliable sources on that. We cannot speculate ourselves, of course, but we can have an article describing existing speculations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, otherwise you could write a possible consequences of anything (Britain converting to the euro for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge into 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. It's regrettable, because this is a well-written and referenced article, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia as its topic is unavoidably speculative (and contains more than a small degree of original research). Some of the content here is worth keeping (that which is actually factual rather than speculation), but it would be best presented as a subsection of the main article on the Kosovan declaration of independence, not as an independent article. (As a final note: if and when some of the consequences listed here actually occur, this article can always be recreated based on the historical facts.) Terraxos (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It would seem there are quite a few people here not assuming good faith. Almost every delete opinion cites POV as a reason and it seems those who cite POV consider the POV to be that Kosovo's independence is a bad thing. Since I created the article I think I have a pretty good grasp of why the article was created. I thought this situation or precedent was a very important bit of info and needed some place here. I knew there was going to be some conflict over it, and the article was incomplete, however I figured the problems could be settled through edits. I still think these problems can be resolved through editing, especially now that Kosovo has declared its independence. I'm made a few edits where there's contrary views on what the reaction will be, though undeniably there will be a reaction no matter what, and that's all that matters. An issue like this can't be considered POV just because the subject matter itself is generally a negative thing, we allow articles on wars which are generally considered negative, it's about whether the subject is notable and the article reflects a neutral view of it. On speculation there is none as I've said many times before, what there is are people's statements on what they will do and now there are mentions of what people are doing, have done, or are going to do, not exactly musings on the outlook of the world.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The imperfections in the content of the article can be sorted out through the normal editorial process. But the "Kosovo Precedent" (probably a better name for the article) has generated so much coverage and debate that it would be wrong to delete this article just because some people are uncomfortable about Kosovan independence and its consequences, for whatever reason. You can't simply censor content because you dislike the subject matter being brought up.
 * Kosovo is an historical, legal and political precedent which is distinct from the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa. It brings a whole new dimension to self-determination and created a new set of uncertainties. To delete this article would be to deny the importance of this issue.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Who is the set of academicians, experts that have, within a week since the declaration of independence, written a complete set of consequences? I believe this article must be deleted.-- A rbë r ( Let's Talk ) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The declaration of indepence for Kosovo hardly came as a surprise to the international community. Considerations of the implications of international recognition of Kosovo as a nation have been rife since 1999. Taemyr (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Last time, I was for deletion of the article. In the present state of it, I still think it should be deleted. However, if an article Kosovo precedent was written, it could include most of the content from this one. Still, it would need a very strong paragraph describing a viewpoint of those, who say that this is no precedent at all. --Tone 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you could favour renaming the existing article and work on any editorial problems through standard procedures?--Conjoiner (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the article can't stay in its present state. I propose someone writes a draft of Kosovo precedent article so that we have something to work on. I can help with editorial issues as much as my time and my knowledge of the situation allows. --Tone 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is best to wait for the outcome of this vote before proceding with writing a draft of another article. Could you outline your suggestions on the talk page of the current article?--Conjoiner (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have briefly outlined my idea on the talkpage. I think it's easy to see what I propose. --Tone 23:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(From Navinsan) - my opinion is that this should remain - I have no real interest, but we should maintain consistency and a lack of bias - this article merely restates inarguable facts - it does not implicitly reference any obligatory rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.168.21 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at least Don't rename. Delete because its crystal ballery of the worst sort, but if the content stays, it should stay at the NPOV name of Controversy. Considering the vast majority of the controversy is over whether or not it sets a precedent, naming it the kosovo precedent is, really, just plain silly. - M  ask?  21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Current title: Controversy over Kosovo independence) This is a severe fracture in international relations, and it is notable enough to be covered here. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To sum up the arguments against this article: too POV, too much original research, and most of all, too much crystal balling. I've done my research since my last comment, and here's what I found: The first two arguments (POV and OR) are very weak arguments indeed: they are problems to be corrected, not reasons for deletion. Allow me to drop a quote from WP:POV: "At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." That is, indeed, what we are doing. The third and most prevalent argument, about crystal ballery, does have its merits. But again, let me drop a quote, this time from WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." This article falls (loosely, it is true) under the the category of "whether some development will occur." It looks to me like the established policies suggest keeping the article. And, as I said above, this article should remain in some form, whatever we need to do to make it acceptable. Twilight Realm (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hereward77, with the name Controversy over Kosovo independence. Important subject of international relations. Tiphareth (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main article regarding Kosovo Independence. Cleanup POV and speculation issues. TheWoody (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main article regarding Kosovo Independence after cleaning up for NPOV. croll (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's an important international happening with significant possible consequences that can be verified, rendering WP:CRYSTAL moot. I don't object to a merge and/or renaming if people see fit to do so. Needs more citations, more NPOV, stripping away of any crystalballery or original research. But it's encyclopedic enough as a topic.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and restructure - The article is largely about the possibility that the Kosovo unilateral declartation of independence becoming a precedent for other sessionist states, contrary to the principle that national borders should not be altered by force. This is speculative, but not mere speculation; it is a legitimate fear that has guided international policy, and led to certain countries not recognising Kosovo as independent.  The article has evidently developed from something else, and needs its earlier sections substantially amending to focus it on its main issue.  I presume there is a parallel article on Kosovo independence to provide the background.  I would support something like Kosovo Precedent as a new name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who now want to keep it under the title, "Controversy over Kosovo independence", you should keep in mind that we already have International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which details what the international reactions have actually been to Kosovo's independence, as opposed to what they may quite possibly be at some indeterminate point in the future. Superm401 - Talk 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the page for reaction seems to be mainly focusing on official statements regarding independence. Some have suggested merging that page with foreign relations of Kosovo so it may not be good to merge this page with that one. It also would clash with that page's overall structure.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge sourced and non-POV material into Kosovo Independence. Rigby27   Talk  20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is interesting and sourced article. I think it can be kept under the present title.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge. It's too long to merge; the merged article would inevitably be tagged for a split. The article needs work, but is not inherently deletion-worthy or ill-conceived. I question the political motivations of suggesting that it fits WP's deletion policy. It isn't POV that people care fundamentally more about negative consequences than positive ones, or that the article was not written with a mind toward "potential synergies". In fact, that's really fucking stupid. You are arguing epistemology. When was the last time you saw a news broadcast that told you that 6,602,074,175 people survived on a particular day, rather than that 150,000 people died? Current events which are worth talking about are, by definition, exceptional. So claiming it's POV because it's only talking about exceptional consequences is patently ridiculous. It may be POV for other reasons, and that would need to be fixed. But it is not a credible reason to delete the article. On an unrelated note, I think User:Superm401 should shut the fuck up. Not just here, but in general. I consider his contributions to be weak-reasoned, non sequitur, and usually childish. --76.217.93.102 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I generally agree with your sentiments on the article please refrain from personal attacks.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.