Deletion of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

Comment: I added a short summary of this article to the article at Werner Erhard, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard&diff=396186452&oldid=395855588 diff, we will see if that remains in that article or if it gets removed by s. In any event, this article is too large to be merged there. Best to just link back here for more details, using {{tl|Main}} template
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: I know that most people are voting to keep this article.  Taken alone it appears to be noteable, but as the nominator point out, it seems to be a huge oatrack article. The creator of the article, Cirt, has written so many articles on the topic, it does raise the question "Why else would they create this big of an article over something that was legal non-event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: The only coatrack I see here is this AfD being filed as an apparent attack against another editor, as half the nomination is more about that editor rather than the article.  The subject matter is clearly notable and widely covered by |reliable sources, and makes quite clear that that CBS later deemed the material to be inaccurate, to the point where they withdrew the claims and no longer make the show or transcript available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: nominator is jumping to several conclusions regarding the motives of the article's creator, and such speculation is not grounds for deletion. Do I myself think that the article may be too long, and that maybe it might not warrant a separate article? To a degree, yeah. Do I think the same thing about almost half the articles I see around here, many/most of which aren't nominated for deletion? Yeah. So, my opinion don't count for much. It meets , and that is pretty much the only point I can see to delete it. Maybe, in time, it could be merged into some other article, but this probably is not the place to discuss such things
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I have started a new section on the talk page to discuss the  issues on the entry.  As I voted above, I think the entry should be kept, but it needs serious reworking.  Please join the discussion here: Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#.  Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: despite the apparent issues with SPAs here, this article satisfies its |notability requirements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: with the appropriate EST articles; the lawsuit (which never resulted in a decision or precedent) isn't independently notable per #NEWS and .  No reason to fork this off from Landmark Education litigation. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: It is against  to repeat unsubstantiated allegations, and that is what this article appears to be written to do. The legal case itself encompasses very little of this article, as there is not much to say about the case itself.  Also as user THF points out above, more than half of the sources in this article are violations of . The allegations are unsubstantiated, have been refuted in reliable publications, and they were withdrawn from public record by the party responsible for presenting them in the first place. This was dealt with in the Werner Erhard article where editors determined that it was a violation to repeat unsubstantiated allegations in a biography about a living person . What is in the article is the one clear fact, which is that CBS removed the video and transcripts from their archives
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:SYN||WP:BLP)

Comment: in response to "this article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations, which were later proven to be untrue": read ! ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Cirt as usual, has created a Fine Article with a plethora of diverse sources establishing Notability and to Boot 60 minutes segements on it. Also Concerned about Open COI on the nom part (though I applaud his decency on being open about). If the Nominator has concerns about  then the solution is to make it NPOV. However Cirt has once again created a Neutral (From my POV at least.)  It is not an Attack page or Coatrack in my opinion. Also may i Note the stats you have cited are accuate but its worth noting that EST-Popculture, Outrageous Betrayal are both GA having gone through some form of Peer review and been promoted as Neutral and Factually accurate. YOu have also failed to provide any evidence Cirt violating Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. Please bring up such accuastions on the appropriate notice board as mudslinging here is counter proudcitve.  Also you Cirts edits at Werner Heart seem to mostly be reverting vandalism and such http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard&action=history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The topic is clearly notable but the current entry is the poster-boy of .  A NPOV version of this could be 1/10 of the size
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)