Deletion of The New Way Forward

Comment: but with reservations.  I think it's silly to have an article about what some people think a not-yet happened speech will be about, but it does not seem to violate the |crystal ball rule because it is sufficiently documented in the press and it seems that the speech will happen in some form or another.  As more details become clearer the article can be updated accordingly (but perhaps some of the sections, such as the personnel changes that may or may not be attributable to the New Way Forward speech/doctrine, are still to speculative for inclusion even if the article as a whole is sufficiently nonspeculative).  I don't find any glaring neutrality issues, at least none that can't be cleaned up.  And the bottom line to me is that by the time this debate settles on whether or not to delete the article the speech ''will'' have happened and then there will definitely be enough material for an article.  But if, on the other hand, a couple weeks go by and it becomes clear that the New Way Forward speech will in fact not go forward, then there is certainly a strong argument to delete the article (as opposed to keeping it, and having the article be about the media speculation of a speech that never was
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The research I've done on google and other sites reveals precious little about this "New Way Forward": see http://websearch.cnn.com/websearch/search?source=cnn&eref=homesearch&invocationType=search%2Ftop&sites=web&query=The+New+Way+Forward the search results for "The New Way Forward" (CNN) and http://search2.foxnews.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=fnc&filter=0&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&q=The+New+Way+Forward FOX News, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?search=MSNBC&q=The+New+Way+Forward&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&os=0&gs=1&p=1 MSNBC, and http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=The+New+Way+Forward&srchst=nyt the New York Times, and google:The New Way Forward|Google. Note that two of the first four sites that come up are blogs. There are only a few relevant articles within these searches, and the few that are relevant refer to Bush's upcoming speech. If this article is becoming a definition of the term "New Way Forward" based on the way the media uses the phrase, then this fails most of  and possibly (?) #DICTIONARY. If this article is becoming a summary of Bush's speech, then you would have to rely on media speculation which I have mentioned before as not being a good idea. Unless, of couse, you wait for Bush to make his speech before re-making the article. That way, you can use some genuine facts to build this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT)