The result was no consensus. As usual, I discount opinions who appear to be motivated by their writers' ethnic or national background instead of Wikipedia policies, particularly the last four "delete" opinions. A merger discussion, taking into account the concerns highlighted by Fut. Perf, might be worthwhile, though. Sandstein 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. WP:POV. WP:NEO. The article is based on personal ideas over an imaginary Macedonian Language Dispute. There are neither sources from the acclaimed disputing party nor it is stated in what instance is this dispute taken precisely. It is a mainly POV article, constructed on Original Research and personal thought and beliefs. Some unrelated arguments are used (Like the Republic of Macedonia constitutional name dispute) to add a more convincing tone to the POV expressed. WP:NEO.WP:OR In the article are presented some original ideas as alternative names for the Macedonian Language and Republic of Macedonia, with a clear intent of defamation and spreading disinformation. As seen on the talk page reactions, this creative terms are pretty offending: "Skopian Language", "Bulgaroskopian language", "Bulgaro-Macedonian language", "Slavic Dialect language" and "State of Skopje". This article is in clear contrast with the cardinal content policies of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted. Alex Makedon (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]