Deletion of Iranian-American War

Comment: The article covers a topic that has received coverage from multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources. That is to say, that it is |attributable and |notable.  OT#CRYSTAL applies only to ''unverifiable speculation''. This is clearly both verifiable ''and verified''. It also states that '''"it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: per . Any truly notable snippets of information from this article could possibly go into Foreign relations of Iran
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per .  This is a classic example of a situation where just because we have sources on something doesn't mean there should be an article about it.  "A war between Iran and the US might happen" is not an encylopedic topic.  One could also write articles on "Potential assassination of George Bush", or of whoever the current US president is at any moment, there are always people speculating on what would happen if a president dies, that wouldn't belong here either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: as |original research; this article takes various claims of military tension between the U.S. and Iran and blows this up into an "Iranian-American War," which has never happened and hopefully never will. By the way, I've moved Sino-American War to Potential military conflict between the United States and China because there is no such thing as the "Sino-American War
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Textbook example of Crystal Ball. I don't care if it renders other articles obsolete -- if that's the case then consideration should be given as to whether the articles in question likewise should be here. If there's an article on speculative future American conflicts, then this can be mentioned there. The  argument may apply to articles like the Sino-American conflict article mentioned ... or it may be independently notable for other reasons. For example there is plenty of good rationale for keeping an artcle on World War III, for example, because of the wealth of scholarly work and popular culture references regarding it. Very little if any exists for this particular speculated conflict. And on a minor note, the very article title is problematic as there is no guarantee such a war, should it happen, will be given this name. It's more likely to be called the Third Gulf War
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: I have never seen anything that didn't happen in an encyclopedia before. Even if it is refrenced well tha doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. It should be deleted under the third section of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per , massively POV. It means that articles such as British-Iranian War will be created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: There is, and has never been, an Iranian-American war. When there is, we can create an article. Until then, |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Any article that starts ''Many people have been considering the possibility of ...'', as this article does, is about as clear an example of violating  (a crystal ball) as is possible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Far too speculative, and |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: at least for now anyways, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)