Deletion of Second Korean War

Comment: RfC is a wrong venue for this. Take it to fD if you want to pursue deletion on  or OT grounds. –&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: Fails (1) and possibly (3). A war while possibly likely is definitely not certain and the date of said possible war is even less certain. Procedurally - I suggest moving this RfC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (and discuss future possible conflicts in general, with the Korean peninsula provided as an example/test-case), and place this article in AfD - which I intend to doand restore the '''redirect''' in this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL)

Comment: Pure . Every time the North Koreans launch a missile, the media speculates about an impending war. Wikipedia, however, |is not a newspaper, and its editors are supposed to think differently than a media journalist, according to . When we fail to do that, essays founded on fabrication can flourish
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: and '''Merge''' ONLY: please do not redirect it to the Wikipedia article as the first Korean war is still not finished, because of Korean Armistice Agreement 1953, the second war could not be happened, and it is Pure  and the current subject would mislead public.  The subject leads a speculation for the another speculation. It not enough , it would also fall in to the area:  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. To respect the contributions of the content, please relocate the current content to the draft space, the some of the contents and contributions would be entirely beneficial to merge 2017 North Korea crisis, after creating the subsection military option
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL||WP:RS)

Comment: The speculation itself meets Wikipedia:GNG. It has been ongoing since the end of the first Korean War. When such a possible event gets that much long term coverage from  an article should not just be allowed, it should be encouraged as it clearly meets the core purpose of Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There is not enough  to meet the requirements for . It does not make sense to redirect to another article, as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)