Deletion of The Third intifada

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS and . Even if the much muted "Third Intifada" does indeed come to pass the article as nominated was hardly the best of starts was it? And without talking down his efforts, {{u|Notecardforfree}}'s heroic rewrite is little more than a bit of vague speculation based on the musings of a few commentators
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I agree with  problem but it never justifies deleting a notable subject. A simple https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Third+intifada&oq=The+Third+intifada&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3j69i60l2.1374j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 search, brings up reliable secondary sources for this subject, such as http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/friedman-the-third-intifada.html?_r=0 this, http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/david-s-harp/.premium-1.679037 this, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/third-palestinian-intifada-on-way-or-already-begun this and etc. I'm not ignoring the fair critique presented by the nominator, but they only has nothing to do with AFD policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I agree with the critiques about this article (i.e. with  and ), and I think someone needs to  and start from scratch. However, it does appear that reliable sources use this term to describe a hypothetical conflict, and appears some sources claim the Third Intifada has already begun. See, for example, http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/This-is-not-the-third-intifada-yet-421413 this source and http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ready-or-not-the-third-intifada-may-be-here/409507/ this source. I think a good analogy for this article may be the article for World War III. There has never been a Third World War, but the term has received enough coverage to justify an article, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:BLOWITUP||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Intifada per Roscelese. That seems to be the best option. There's a bunch of  articles that struggle to focus on whether it's about the term, or disparate things that different people have applied the term to (which hits OR and SYNTH issues fast
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Nothing about this article is encyclopedia worthy. Its at best  and definitely 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CRYSTAL)