Deletion of Cold War II

Comment: meets GNG. Something does not have to exist or be proved true to have a Wikipedia article (see Loch Ness Monster), so it doesn't matter whether or not it really is another Cold War, it only matters that the topic has been discussed in broad detail. The article should make it clear what the  state and the controversy of whether or not there is a second Cold War. A disagreement over the title is also not cause for deletion. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/04/welcome-to-cold-war-ii/, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/11/13/vladimir-putins-aggressive-moves-herald-the-launch-of-a-new-cold-war, http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/05/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-column-ukraine-cold-war-20140305, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pyotr-romanov/cold-war-ii_b_6414032.html, http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/is-this-cold-war-ii/?_r=0, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/30/common-ground-cold-war-ii-nyet-russia-us-putin-column/13376697/, http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-cold-war-ii-nyet, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/as-cold-war-ii-looms-wash_b_8307470.html, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17668#.VjtW7hCrSRs, http://www.theglobalist.com/not-cold-war-ii-but-toward-world-war-iii/, http://www.globalresearch.ca/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii-us-media-propaganda-on-russia/5454471
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: That *is* a terrible title, and I expected the article to be terrible , but it actually seems to be a pretty reasonable article. I therefore lean keep, though I am open to the notion that renaming and even merges are possible says forwards AFD doesn't seem like a very good venue for that discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)