Deletion of Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Comment: obviously significant discussion from a multitude of secondary sources that satisfy both  and , and such references are located in multiple locations around the world. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: per Joe Decker. There's a lot here, though it's fairly recentist for my tastes, it's clearly notable. The  concern... meh... it's real, I'll grant that, but it's got the coverage to at least push it towards the "likely to be notable" side. That said, it was a default judgment, and any remaining contentious parts of the case will probably deal with boring, hashed-out civil procedure issues with no lasting effect. And really... even if we got a nice substantive decision on contract law, is it likely to do much other than discuss the enforceability of penalty clauses? But that's all speculation, and I could honestly be really wrong. In short, I think  is met, and that's enough for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: refactor to ''Palmer v. Kleargear.com'' or a similar title.  Unless Wikipedia has started recognizing Corporate personhood (and if that's the case, I missed the memo.)  is inapplicable. I think there's an excellent chance that Kleargear is only notable for the case, though, and given the case really the subject of the coverage, a rename is warranted.  is interesting here, but the most relevant guidance is really at .  There, we do have some international coverage, so  is modestly satisfied,  as well, there is modest , and given a possible appeal, it's difficult to estimate the chances of any possible  effect, some sort of precedent is plausible here given the novelty of the case, but far from assured. In short,  we're left with a judgement call, and in view of those metrics, I lean toward retaining content per , and titling it properly to correct issues of  weight. If this is moved, I believe a redirect would be appropriate per usual practice. If there is a valid user for userfication, that would be my second choice in order to preserve content should an appeal to the Circuit Court happen
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:DEPTH||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:LASTING||WP:PRESERVE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: IMHO notable per basic .  There very well could be merit to a rename
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails rg ,otnews and .It has attracted news coverage due to the controversy but that does not make it  pass .It was  Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded as per Closing admin in last AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)