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 keep. Naming issues etc can be resolved outside of AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Kosovo independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article strikes me as an unsalvageable coatrack. It's an essay, and its contents are all summarised in better, more neutral fashion elsewhere. Some choice excerpts:

• "These painful events, and the UDI violating Serbia's territorial integrity, pose a problem for Serbia and the international relations at large: do they or don't they set a precedent for other separatists, who are conflicted with their own central governments?"
• "Given this stark brutality..."
• "These politicians paid lip service to Serbian historicity of Kosovo, its symbolic and emotional importance as the cradle of the Serbian nation, yet, ironically, few Serbs showed any desire to leave the prosperous regions of Serbia and relocate to this neglected, impoverished outpost on its southwestern fringe, an unfriendly area teeming with speakers of quite a different language, espousing a different religion, and decidedly feeling collectively aggrieved."
• "The question remains: was it a legal departure? What are its implications?"

It seems clear such speculations do not belong here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Aymatth2's cleanup work, and given broad consensus for keeping/merging, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does include statements that are far from neutral. That is a basis for clean-up, not for deletion. The many sources cited show that there is indeed a notable controversy. There is some overlap between this topic and Political status of Kosovo and considerable overlap with International recognition of Kosovo. Perhaps some very bold editor will undertake a merge into the latter. Until then, assertions that do not reflect a neutral point of view should be removed, but the article should not be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(We also have neutrality flags on Kosovo, Kosovo War, Albanians in Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo, International recognition of Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army, Serbs in Kosovo and Foreign relations of Kosovo. Clearly there is a controversy, which will probably take many years to be resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking on, there may be value in focusing as much as possible of the Kosovo controversy on this one article. That is, make the article on International recognition of Kosovo a strictly factual account of the current formal positions taken by the governments, move any controversial content to this one, and police International recognition of Kosovo to keep it purely factual: an accurate statement of current official positions. It may be harder to remove the controversy from the other articles, but worth an attempt. We then have one controversial article on the controversy where editors can do their best to preserve neutrality. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reorganize as Aymatth suggests. He asked my opinion of his plan, and I think it reasonable -- perhaps because it is essentially what I have suggested at other places also. For the more controversial parts of this, we cannot hope for neutral statements; all we can really expect is balance. Ethnic disputes will not find their final settlement on Wikipedia. Our goal is to present the agreed facts, and the interpretations of the different parties. DGG (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point: we can and should always expect neutral statements, and we should of course cover every point (the neutral way of which is quoting each point, WP:UNDUE provided); we do it in the same place, not all over the place. Other than quoting all sides and leaning on the side of caution in impersonal statements, I have no idea what "neutrality" you expect and how you define it. And I don't see how unforking the info is similar to find a "final settlement" for "ethnic disputes" - wikipedia finds no settlement, permanent or hourly, because that's not within its scope; what it does is record the controversy as it is, taking the necessary distance from opinions, and including only qualified opinions cited from reliable sources. The fact that editors consistently try to ignore that or find a way around that should set no precedent. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree the article has unneutral wording, but this is not grounds for deletion. It does need a cleanup however, would you (the nom) consider doing this with a few other interested editors? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Undoubtly there is a great deal of controversy on the independence issue, but it could be sufficently covered by a merge of this article with Political status of Kosovo. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge COATRACK, but also a likely POV fork, another one of those cases where, if editors can't (or don't try to) agree on a neutral text, they start creating "read me! read me!" articles. Note: my comment does not address the persons who created the article, but the way in which such an article can, is and will be used. Dahn (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have done some broad edits to the article, taking out paragraphs that had no references, and in one case dropping a whole section where the url for the only reference pointed back to the article itself! Not a complete clean-up by any means, but perhaps a bit better. The result is an article with four very distinct discussions:

a) Legality of the secession, which could be merged into Political status of Kosovo - I may just do that did it
b) Status of Kosovo Serbs, which could be merged into Serbs in Kosovo - I may just do that too did it
c) Does Kosovo set a precedent for other disputes?
d) Impact on international relations.

I don't see an obvious target for merging the discussion on whether it sets a precedent, which is (or should be) much more about international law and the effect on other countries than about Kosovo itself, but it is a valid topic as the number of references prove. So maybe the content on setting a precedent should be made into a stand-alone article. The content in the last section is minor and could be dropped is moved to International recognition of Kosovo. Note that the target articles also have problems with neutrality and balance, and it will be tough to get them to generally accepted and stable versions. But they are legitimate subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This disputed article is now reduced to one on the Kosovo precedent. I will try to neutralize the other articles that were victims of my content-merging. I expect the editors watching them have enough problems as it is. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the new neutral version. Topic is notable and article is sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming the decision is to keep this stripped-down and neutralized version, I propose to rename it to "Kosovo precedent debate", which more accurately reflects the remaining content. Any views on the article name? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.