Deletion of Proposed Libyan no-fly zone

Comment: While the nom is of course correct, there are situations where significant world events are in play, and commonsense tells us that given that an article has been created, we should wait a while (two weeks?) before deciding its fate. In a couple of weeks, if this topic has not developed (which seems likely given the current lack of enthusiasm from those who would have to do the no-fly enforcement), the content could be replaced with a redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising#No-fly zone. Normally I would use  to argue for the deletion of a "may be notable in the future" article like this, but I am relying on  here since the topic is more than news or general interest—this is part of a chain of events that may be highly significant for the world
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:IAR)

Comment: This has received a sufficient volume of media coverage and expert opinion to meet  and pass OT#NEWS. Based on similar proposed no-fly zones, it's certain to be the subject of further expert coverage in the longer run
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: It's the subject of substantial discussion by reliable sources, so it's ''already notable'' - I doubt the  card should be played.  does not exclude ''all'' current events from wikipedia (I'd be pretty unhappy with any policy which strove to keep wikipedia out-of-date by a certain length of time). Of course, the situation in reality may develop over time - the article might need a move/rename at some point in future - but that's a matter for normal editing rather than deletion. Who knows, maybe in the longer term reliable sources might subsume this into another issue; we could merge/redirect then, but preempting that by merging/redirecting now would be a crystal problem, I feel
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to 2011 Libyan uprising#No-fly zone. Unless (and until) such a zone comes into factual existance, there is no need for a fork from the main topic. It's also subject to  and  in regards to the volume of news chatter about it, but that only covers part of the notability requirement. Military planning is irrelevant; there are military plans for the US to invade virtually every country on the planet, but that doesn't make them significant or notable. Should this zone ever move from theories floated by the talking heads into something more akin to reality, we can re-create; but being just a proposal means it would be better covered at the parent article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The section in the main 2011 Libyan uprising sufficiently covers this non-event, and could be expanded a bit if need be. Keeping this bloated page full of speculation does not improve the encyclopedia. I also draw people's attention to the even more #NEWS|newsy page Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)