Deletion of Possible consequences of Kosovo independence

Comment: And I hardly ever express a deletionist view) The basic premise of this article is flawed as per .  Some fragments of content might be used elewhere though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to Kosovo Precedent.  explicitly permits this, and it's a much better option than the trash-heap for a well-referenced, well-organized article like this. Bullzeye
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: article is a clear non-violation of  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to "Kosovo Precedent". POV is a , 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 : "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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: as per rystal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Irreconcilable conflict with . Just because you put a lot of words together and source them that doesn't mean the product isn't a pile of crap
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a #crystalball|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Holy cow, |POVania
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: It's an important international happening with significant possible consequences that can be verified, rendering  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

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 #REASON|reasons for deletion. Allow me to drop a quote from : "''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 : "''Wikipedia is not a collection of wikipedia:Verifiability|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:PROBLEM||WP:DEL||WP:POV||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Probably rename to / incorporate into Kosovo Precedent. It clearly does not violate ''- 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a |crystal ball, and our articles are supposed to cover only verifiable subjects from independent subjects. This is not the case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)