Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge, after a long discussion here and at the article talkpages, the this article has been merged with the main Kosovo article. Should a renomination occur, I suggest the alternative proposal is discussed on the talkpage first. --Tone 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo (geopolitical region)

Kosovo (geopolitical region) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:POV fork. This article would have the same content as Kosovo. The splitting in two articles has been done without reaching a consensus on the talk page (there was some discussions, but it seems more people were against this). There's no reason to have two articles, because the region is the same as the Republic of Kosovo, just like Bulgaria is not split in Republic of Bulgaria and Bulgaria (geopolitical region).

The arguments about similarity with China, Cyprus, Palestine, Tibet are wrong: the regions of China, Korea and Cyprus are divided into two distinct countries, Palestine is larger Tibet is larger than the Tibet autonomous region (which includes just a part of historical Tibet).

Kosovo is currently an unitary state and the UN/NATO troops control all of its territory: currently there is an ethnic division in the region, but no political division. bogdan (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe not official, but certainly de facto. PISG has no jurisdiction over North Kosovo (11.1% of territory) whatsoever - which isn't even geographic Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it, there's much info that could go in to that article, especially the history and forth and backs pre-Republic of Kosovo Chandlertalk 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Then the history would be split in two. This is Wikipedia:Content forking bogdan (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The current Kosovo is not NPOV. This article is suppose to be under Kosovo and all the "kosovo states" have own articles, see the ones at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija Chandlertalk 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
the current Kosovo article is far from npov indeed. It is also protected from editing. This observation has nothing to do with this afd. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • keep, clearly valid topic, not a pov fork. Kosovo is at present the article on the Republic of Kosovo, declared in 2008, not on the region. Questions of moving and/or merging articles do not belong on afd. This is the China solution for disputed territories: we have three articles, China (the territory), People's Republic of China (the de-facto government) and Republic of China (the government-in-exile). This borders on a bogus nomination, since Bulgaria is ostensibly not a disputed territory. That's not to say we don't do articles on geopolitical regions unless they are disputed, see Republic of Italy vs. Italian peninsula. The observation that Palestine and Tibet have larger areas than Kosovo is a complete non sequitur without apparent relevance to anything. dab (𒁳) 11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kosovo. This POV fork was created against talk page consensus for a split. There is however consensus for merging the two into a single article. Húsönd 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The first substantial edit was on 17 Feb 2008. Can you link to the discussion before that date where consensus was established for not forking? Thanks Ha! (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, but I could link to discussions afterwards where strong opposition to forking was clear. It would take me a while to gather all those links: multiple discussions about splitting have been a constant in the past weeks, always with the same outcome. Húsönd 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Húsond. Rudget. 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and sanction the forker. Was created as a FORK against CONSENSUS, which was in discussion, by one of the many agenda warriors who've chosen to start the civil war on the wikipedia page before it hits the ground over there. ThuranX (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you list who the agenda warriors are so we can see what you mean? Ha! (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We can't let the pro-Kosovo editors run rampant with Wikipedia and concede to their POV-pushing. The "consensus" pro-Kosovo editors are referring to is basically a stream of pro-Kosovo editors pushing their POV, not a real consensus among neutral editors. In terms of neutral editors the consensus is the other way around. Whenever an article on Kosovo comes up that they don't like they call it a POV fork, it's like a broken record. There is nothing POV about the article and there are similar article on Taiwan and China. The article on Kosovo despite using the word region is clearly about the partially-recognized state not the region and given the disputed nature of Kosovo having an article solely on the region would allow for neutrality. The pro-Kosovo editors basically want the article on Kosovo to talk about Kosovo as an independent nation like it is Bulgaria as the nominator brings up yet they resist having a separate article on Kosovo as something else, even though the Serbs who control 15% of the territory of Kosovo do not recognize Kosovo as independent. Basically this nomination is POV-pushing like they've been doing in various other articles on Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge It is an obvious POV fork with essentially the same content. This is not the way how infobox disputes should be resolved. Zello (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the issue. It's not a simple matter of the infobox. Quite a few editors want the Kosovo article to be about the Republic of Kosovo, but don't want it titled Republic of Kosovo or having an article on the region. Those people are asserting doing this creates a POV fork, but the truth is we have an article on UNMIK which obviously merits its own article so the only new article that has been suggested is this one and it's not a POV fork because it does not even touch on the matter. Mind you the proposal trying to be implemented was to have this article under the title Kosovo while an article on the partially-recognized state was under Republic of Kosovo. The problem is that the current article on Kosovo treats Kosovo like it and the Republic of Kosovo are one and the same by having the infobox, then having sections on politics and administrative divisions which mainly refer to Kosovo in terms of the partially-recognized state. The nature of the article suggests it is about a country, not a region. Hence this article was created to focus solely on the region and then have the other article renamed to Republic of Kosovo as this article is renamed Kosovo. I fail to see how this is a POV fork when it does not push any POV, except the neutral POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above. —Nightstallion 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the only difference between the two articles is what infobox is used. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just like to point out that this article only a little bit ago was actually the article titled Kosovo until that change was reverted. The editor who reverted the change then proceeded to nominate this article for deletion. This nomination is nothing more but the continuation of an ongoing edit war. We should stop giving into this POV-pushing by the pro-Kosovo editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kosovo as redundant and unnecessary to comply with WP:NPOV. A much simpler, clearer & NPOV-compliant description of Kosovo, including what it is considered to be by the different parties involved in the region, can be made in a single unified article; a "de-infoboxed" one if needed. - Ev (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Husond. "Wikipedia articles may have only one unique title; the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title." That a minority of editors strongly dislike Kosovo's independence, or that it has an irredentist region, does not change the fact that it is an internationally recognized unitary state within more or less inclusionary borders. The main article, as it stands, quite adequately discusses the geopolitical disputes involved. No reason has been proffered why Wikipedia has to fight the Serbian corner. (Come to that, the four largest English-majority speaking nations have all recognized Kosovo's independence. I cheerfully concede the right of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to slant the article according to their own lights.)  RGTraynor  19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The four largest English-majority speaking nations" do not set policy on the English wikipedia. 36 or so out of the 140 UN members have recognised the Republic. That isn't enough for us to have a unique article. Frankly, I find it objectionable that you think the only reason someone would believe that a separate article for the disputed state is required is because "a minority of editors strongly dislike it". Frankly, I don't give a damn, but I think a separate article is required. Relata refero (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are free to find anything objectionable you please; I shan't stop you. For my part, when the other side comes up with statements like "We can't let the pro-Kosovo editors run rampant with Wikipedia and concede to their POV-pushing," it's plain upon which side of the bread their views are buttered. Thanks for playing.  RGTraynor  16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no idea if you have a POV on this, but let me point out (a) "the other side" is not a suitable approach to take, WP:BATTLE and all that; (b) my point that WP cannot privilege 34 countries over the others has not been replied to; (c) you haven't substantiated how a carefully neutral presentation at this article "fights the Serbian corner." Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kosovo. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes, especially not disputes about where a page should be. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Except you haven't explained how this is a POV-fork. It covers two different subjects. One covers the state and institutions of the new Republic, the other is the overall article for the region. Relata refero (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • On the surface perhaps, but the intent of the article is clearly POV forking between those who recognize Kosovo as an independent country and those who don't. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We don't speak to intent here. POV forking is about the scope of the two articles, not about the intent of the creators. And I don't think User:Dbachmann has strong opinions on Kosovo in the RW. Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per the points put forward by RGTraynor, Húsönd and Stifle. Ha! (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Merging will result in more than 80 kilobytes. Georgia guy (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles which are much bigger: for instance, Germany (a Featured Article) is 103k long. Anyway, if something doesn't fit in the main article, it can be moved to the subarticles. bogdan (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A good portion of the text here is already at Kosovo, so the amount of text that has to be actually merged will be quite few. Plus, having 70-100 KB articles on countries are not only common, but expected. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is not a POV fork because it expresses no POV and I challenge every last editor who's made this claim to cite ANY POV pushing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as this is in the best interesst of the reader who wants to be informed about what is going on in what kind of state and therefore wants also to know about the history of this country, about his culture, his language and so on. Without this background he would not be able to understand what and why things are like they are. --Tubesship BTW: And yeah, after merging delete this one here to avoid further problems. (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Move. This nomination is ridiculous. I moved this Kosovo (geopolitical region) to Kosovo. The split (reverted by the nominator) was to create Republic of Kosovo, not this article. Move the current Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo, and move this back to Kosovo. Superm401 - Talk 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Ridiculous? Not at all. That move should have never occurred as there was no consensus whatsoever for it. In fact, by looking above it is clear that there is no consensus for moving content out of Kosovo. Húsönd 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the people above are saying that the content at Kosovo (geopolitical region) should be at Kosovo. I agree. That's exactly how things were before you reverted the split. Superm401 - Talk 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You err, I didn't revert anything. Húsönd 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. That was directed at the nominator. Superm401 - Talk 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You err in a second way, because the reader wants to be informed about Kosovo (geopolitical region) when typing in Kosovo, therefore merge, please. Anything else is working against the interest of the reader and his interest should be above of yours, because he is, whom WP serves, not you. Keep in mind, that you are the servant to the reader, when you write. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The split was reverted by the nominating editor. I think that alone should discount this nomination as the reasoning for the nomination only applies because the nominator made a change to the articles concerned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverting the split was the one and only right thing to do and the logical second step was to avoid further splittings he reverted, so he was just consequent by nominating this article for deletion after merging it into Kosovo. --Tubesship (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
While we disagree on that it does not address the sheer illegitimacy of this. The nominating editor only nominated this article after reverting the changes that would have made it a legitimate article. It would have been impossible for the editor to put this up for deletion under the title Kosovo and succeed or the other article Republic of Kosovo on the partially-recognized state because both are clearly legitimate articles which should be separate. So the editor first reverted these changes so that rather than having an article on Kosovo the partially-recognized state and another on Kosovo the region we have two articles apparently on Kosovo the region. The editor nominating this was strongly opposed to having separate articles on Kosovo the territory and Kosovo the partially-recognized state. So after reverting these changes to create what appears to be two similar articles the nominating editor then goes on to put this up for deletion. The nominating editor is using AfD to force against a decision the nominating editor did not approve of without discussion and this editor shows a clear bias in declaring Kosovo a "unitary state" and comparing it to Bulgaria. This nomination is nonsense and this article should not only be kept, but the nominating editor's changes which created the situation undone. Most of the opposition to this decision came from pro-Kosovo editors so that's why it was decided consensus was for a split as it seems only pro-Kosovo editors ever gave objections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point there, that does appear to be what has happened. It would be useful if the nominator could explain why he did it in this particular way as it does seem to be out of order. Ha! (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, see here Ha! (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The current Kosovo is only about the Republic, so if this page (Kosovo (geopolitical region)) is "merged" in, that will in practice just mean it disappears, and the Serbian viewpoint (that Kosovo is a province) will be ignored. Superm401 - Talk 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for a separate article to mention the Serbian position; instead, the main article on Kosovo should be amended to describe this complex situation. Cf. the BBC's profile of Kosovo: Kosovo, an impoverished territory with a population of mainly ethnic Albanians, unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008.
Status: Declared itself independent 17 February 2008. Serbia refuses to recognize declaration. UN-administered in the meantime.
If the country infobox stands in the way of a neutral article, we can simply move it to another section of the article or remove it altogether. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge this with Kosovo it doesn't make sense to seperate the two, especially given the fact that Kosovo at the moment is a country born out of a certain geopolitical entity. I know the Balkans is a complicated place ethnically speaking but thats why theres a country for all and a wikipedia article for each one. Tourskin (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • comment the "merge" votes take the pro-independence point of view. Wikipedia cannot endorse either position in a dispute. This discussion has no place on AfD, and this AfD should be speedily closed as misplaced. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Please stop calling "pro-independence" everyone who is for the merger into Kosovo. I think we can all pretty much decide on this matter in a reasonable, responsible and unbiased way. Tagging people who do not agree with you as "pro-independence" is really unnecessary and sort of immature, sorry to say. Húsönd 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • He says the votes "take a pro-independence point of view", not the editors. That is indeed the problem, that a direct merge would mean Wikipedia itself is taking a view that is not neutral. Relata refero (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Right, so it's the votes who have a pro-independence point of view by themselves. Interesting. Húsönd 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
            • No, its the effect of the votes to create a skewed, pro-independence point of view, which we can't permit. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The people who voted are aware of the result of their position and I don't think we agree that the result would be a pro-independence POV shift of the article Kosovo. The effect of our position will simply be the removal of an article that is merely a POV fork. Its content has its rightful place in Kosovo, which deals with the region, independent country and province of Serbia altogether. Húsönd 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Geography of Kosovo. That's technically what this is all about. Editorofthewiki 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Move to Kosovo. It should be clear that this article has a scope that differs from that of the article on the newly-independent and still relatively unrecognised Republic of Kosovo. For how this approach is sensible and minimises conflict over inessentials, see Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and Kashmir (disambiguation). Also see Punjab. The claim by the nominator that since they "share the same borders" the precedents are irrelevant is puzzling; how precisely is that relevant to the approach that we use to indicate that a particular political entity is contested?
Note that most 'merge' votes are not for the same thing; some for merge into Kosovo as it stands; some merely objecting to the current title; all very confused. Relata refero (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "merge into Kosovo" means merging a former redirect named "Geography of Kosovo" that was transformed into an article (as part of the Wikipedia-wide "Geography of" series – cf. {{Geography of Europe}}) on February 17, 2008, and subsequently expanded in scope and moved to many different names similar to "Kosovo (region)" between March 10 and March 15, 2008, when it finally got its current title of "Kosovo (geopolitical region)", into the original article on Kosovo apparently created on December 15, 2001 (cf. earliest history).
Since then, the old "Geography of Kosovo", which had become one of the many redirects left from those 5 days of moving the article around, has been transformed into an article for the second time on March 26, 2008; and is now the Kosovan version of the Wikipedia-wide "Geography of" series.
To avoid any confusion let me state that "merge into Kosovo" is not an endorsement of the current version of that article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all confusion has been avoided. :) Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL point taken :-) The idea is having a single, comprehensive and NPOV-compliant article at "Kosovo", covering all aspects (and not being used for the "Rep. of Kosovo" only, as is the case since yesterday). - Ev (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Currently, people at Talk:Kosovo think Kosovo is about RoK. If there's to only be one article, it absolutely needs to address the Serb position, not just RoK. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the idea: general description instead of just RoK. - Ev (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So just write a few sentences with the Serbian position about it and it is ok. But no renaming, moving or splitting, please! --Tubesship (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominating editor actually created the conditions used to justify the nomination by reverting the moving of this article and others. Prior to those reversions there could be no question to the legitimacy of the article, but by reverting the changes the nominating editor created the conditions necessary to even justify a nomination. Given the editor has shown a rather blatant bias on the issue and is also part of the dispute this article arose from, a dispute which has yet to be resolved, I suggest this be kept until the dispute over moving the articles is resolved. Caving to this editor is just going to lead to more edit warring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I simply reverted Superm401's move. There were plenty of people who disagreed with the idea on the talk page. Taking important decisions such as this one, without seeking consensus first, is not acceptable. bogdan (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a diff to the exact decision(s) you're referring to, so we can see the lack of consensus prior to that point? Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't make such ridiculous accusations when it's clear to any objective observer that it's outright false. Consensus was sought and it was strongly in favor of a split. Wikipedia is not a democracy so majority vote does not mean consensus, though even if it were consensus would still be for a split, but quality and reasoning of vote. All opposing such a move were either biased or had no valid reason for opposing the move, but the point is you nominated this article and wouldn't have been able to so without making the changes you did. Your nomination is nothing more but the extension of an edit war. It is not the appropriate way by any means to deal with a dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide diffs or a link to the article state when consensus was in favour of a split. Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Devil, I can read. And I read there was a consens towards merging and against splitting, moving or renaming. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide diffs or a link to the article state when consensus was in favour of merging. Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29 --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me you just counted votes and didn't bother to consider context. Let's look at some of these editor's comments, "Therefore no splitting, but if so (under my protest), then Kosova = Republic of Kosova," "Strong oppose. The main article should be about the European country," "No need for different articles. We need only 1 article on Kosovo, and that's Kosovo as a Republic," and "Strongly oppose spliting. The majority of teh EU, NATO, UNSC permanant members and G8 recognise Kosovo." That's four of the editors showing a rather blatant POV which suggests Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo are the same thing or should be treated as the same thing. However, several other editors there have shown a POV elsewhere. Interestingly enough I found an intriguing entry you made: "Merge, as it is contra productive to have 2 different articles about the same issue and regarding the fact that a person searching for Kosovo wants most probably to be informed about the newest state in Europe." Interesting indeed. Any real analysis of the talk page would show a strong amount of support for a split and most of the opposition coming from people who openly proclaim support for Kosovo or actually say they think the article on Kosovo should talk about Kosovo as an independent country. Given these facts most of those opposing a split can be thrown out and while there's probably biased editors calling for a split I don't think there any questioning which comes out on top in the end and who has the better arguments. Arguing that "splitting is quitting" does not really do much here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I spent far more time seeking consensus for the split than you did for your revert. Note that seeking consensus doesn't mean listening to people saying things like "Right on! Split would be evil!". Neither of us got unanimous agreement. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Bogdangiusca did the right thing as a matter of fact. And there is plenty of consensus both at Talk:Kosovo and right here that the POV fork that is hereby nominated for deletion should go. Húsönd 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I reiterate my challenge to you that I made to all editors calling this a POV fork to point out where there's any POV in this article. So far I have received no response. Most curious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Its existence is POV. The only purpose for its creation was to have an article about Kosovo that would make little reference to the Republic Kosovo and would not have its respective userbox. All of its content is either already described in Kosovo, or has its rightful place there. Simple as that. Húsönd 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section is basically the same yes, but it's the same on many other articles as well. What matters is what's different and what's different does not impact the neutrality of the article. The article makes little reference to either Republic of Kosovo or any other manifestation. There should be a section to deal with the political dispute, but it doesn't have to be dealt with intensely by an article such as this. On a further note this article was placed there, before the editor who nominated this article changed that, prior to nominating it of course.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I realize this is a very sensitive topic, but I don't see the difference between Kosovo the region and Kosovo the political entity. It seems the only reason for this article is to avoid the political controversy. King Pickle (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's the difference: Everyone agrees Kosovo the region exists. Some people disagree on whether the political entity should exist. The difference is in the scope of the articles. Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge After reading through I think that this tug of war must have an end. Merging this article would solve this problem for all times and it would lead the reader to the information he is looking for. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if we were given your reasons for that hope... Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is self declaring because if there is only one end of a tug, everybody has to pull at this one end. If there is only one article, everybody has to work together. Further difficult questions? Just keep on asking. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No, my suggestion wasn't trolling. It was incredulity that you think that creating a single article would reduce drama. Relata refero (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. There is no such thing as "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" apart from "Kosovo", the article that is meant to be at Wikipedia, like on any other language version. POV issues need to be resolved without scattering the subject matter of Kosovo to four wikiwinds. The nominator's analogy to Bulgaria is apt and, might I add, reflects understanding of the region, which apparently is lacking in some other participants, however well-meaning their edits may be. --Mareklug talk 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • you may have missed that the article at Kosovo is at present about the Republic of Kosovo. Viz., the title doesn't fit the scope. Once we have moved it to Republic of Kosovo, i.e. the title corresponding to its actual scope, we will be free to move Kosovo (geopolitical region) to Kosovo if we so choose. Alternatively, we can just redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation), since there are lots of places with this name. Your comment is irrelevant to the question at hand. There is only one region of "Kosovo" in the Balkans, and its article is at present at Kosovo (geopolitical region). This is the case because the Kosovo title is at present take by the article on the entity of disputed legal status declared in February 2008. This is a matter of moving and possibly merging articles. Such a debate has no place on AfD. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, where do you see the difference between Kosova as a state and Kosova as a geopolitical region? Why can the article Kosova not include both, the newest state in Europe called Kosova and at the same time discuss this region (which is now a state) geopolitically? We still do not see your problem. You still missed to tell us your reason of your opposition. So please answer the question above istead of insisting that others do not give a valid reason. No, it is you not giving us a valid reason for your opposition. There is no contradiction in merging both articles. And please stop distorting fact because when you talk about "possibly merging" it is obvious that you do not mean what the majority here means. Let us talk clear, please and not play seek and hide, because it was this behaviour that made many of us sick an tired and therefore we want to get rid of this article once and forever as some are hiding her agenda behind this article. Bogdans decision to propose this article for AfD after merging is right and justified. --Tubesship (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
account is operated by a nationalist troll zealot refusing to recognize even the existence of the anti-independence pov. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
account is operated by a racist troll zealot with resentment against ethnic Albanians refusing to recognize even the existence of the independence npov. --Tubesship (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. Same as above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • same as above: no valid reason. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete, per WP:POVFORK Chaldean (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not then Merge to Kosovo - POVFork , there is no difference between Kosovo the region and the state , why cant we simply explain in the article Kosovo that it is disputed region/territory. As for the rest of the information , it can be included in :Geography of Kosovo and History of Kosovo (as well as in Kosovo)--Cradel 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly valid topic, not a pov fork. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Feargod, you missed the point as there is no difference between "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" and "Kosovo" as there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany". Therefore there is no need for this article named "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" and it should be deleted (after merging). --Tubesship (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
my point is clear. I will not change my decision--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to point out the policy being used to justify nomination doesn't even apply. Specifically, Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As it stands right now the article titled Kosovo is about the Republic of Kosovo while this is simply about the region itself. The Republic of Kosovo would represent a distinct topic separate from Kosovo itself as Kosovo is thought of differently by most other countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's false. The article titled Kosovo is about the region, republic and province. Húsönd 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, now that the article has yet again been changed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge overlaps with Kosovo too much. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete, mainly due to overlap, but also POV forking. We have plenty of articles where this information could go (indeed, where it's already present) - not just Kosovo, but also Geography of Kosovo, History of Kosovo, Politics of Kosovo, etc. Since the breakaway Serbian province just about covers the region, there's no need for two articles on the same entity.
As for the argument that there's a slight difference between the Serbian province as a whole and the part of the province under de facto control by ethnic Albanian indicted traitors: well, yes. But then again, there's quite a big difference between, say, historical Romania and present-day Romania, Germany in 1914 and today, etc. We could probably have two articles in that fashion for many countries of the world, but let's not go down that road just yet, at least until the dust settles in Kosovo and academic literature treating the "geopolitical region" and the Serbian province as distinct entities emerges. Biruitorul (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment will the closing admin please take into account that this "AfD" is being flooded by partisan votes along ethnic lines. There is no case made for deletion, and the "merge" votes simply take the "pro-indepencence" point of view. AfD is not the place to vote on ethnic or territorial disputes. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure the closing admin won't give a s*** about ethnicity as not everybody has the ethnic resentments you obviously have, dear dab aka Dbachmann. --Tubesship (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
dab will you please stop making such ludicrous accusations? The way you are contesting everyone is hardly worthy of an admin. Please present your arguments responsibly and refrain from attacking merge-supporters' capacity of providing valid positions. Thanks. Húsönd 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be careful, you two. I could collect some rather telling diffs on both of you and the state of your "good faith". I am however not seeking action against you, since pov-pushing accounts are a dime a dozen in this case. There is an actual debate going on at Talk:Kosovo, it is just difficult to pick out among all the allcaps hysteria. You want to take this to RfAr, be my guest, but this is clearly no topic for AfD. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What, you haven't collected those diffs already?! Please do, should be interesting. Húsönd 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kosovo. Pace dab, this is not motivated by a "pro-Kosovo" POV, but simply by the conviction that the topic overlap between the two articles (on the factual, not the symbolic level) is too great – close on 100%, actually – to warrant two different articles. Decisions about separateness of articles should not be dictated by considerations of "acknowledging" or not acknowledging political entities, but by considerations of how to package information most practically. POV problems are not solved by dividing articles out. To be sure, this is not to mean that the resulting unified Kosovo article ought to be a standard country-type article focussing on the Republic as the sole or primary political incarnation of the geographic territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • no problem with merging. I object to have merge or split debates on AfD. This is not what AfD is for. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the debate on Talk:Kosovo has become more constructive, and there seems to be an emerging consensus for merging. I have done the merger now, and I suggest the redirect is left in place in order to preserve the editing history (no need to delete). dab (𒁳) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Clarifying my postion, as well as justifying why this is an AfD matter: Kosovo (geopolitical region) has the same need of being on the English Wikipedia as it does in the current Encyclopedia Britannica or the current Wielka Encyklopedia PWN. My objection transcends Wikipedia, and is made purely on categorial grounds. Same goes for any putative Poland (geopolitical region) and the aforementioned Bulgaria (geopolitical region). It is not beyond the English Wikipedia's abilities craft a unified Kosovo article, with topical subarticles spawned as needed; this is just not one of them, nor is it a justified sibling. I trust that this per analogiam justification will be seen as convincing on the merit of things. I would like my voice to register here as that of the corrective editor of polyandry in Tibet, wherein both polygyny and polygynandry are to be described, yet each is technically distinct from polyandry and on the face of things outside the scope of this article. Nonetheless, categorially and anthropologically, these things belong under one roof. Similarly here, geographically and historically, we need only one Kosovo. As for the mentioned need of keeping the edit history, how about echoing it to a subpage of Talk:Kosovo, making it directly accessible from one of its headers, as unmistakenably belonging to "Kosovo (geopolitical region)"? The benefit of keeping the article in article space merely as a history container/redirect is not worth a singleton in the counterfactual space of the abovementioned geopolitical red links. --Mareklug talk 18:21, 2 April 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.