Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible consequences of Kosovo independence
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
— User:Twilight, 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:PROBLEM||WP:DEL||WP:POV||WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)