Deletion of Arlene's Flowers lawsuit

Comment: per Tokyogirl79. It's definitely notable based on the coverage I'm finding, but the subject of the article, namely, the lawsuit (or lawsuits: there seems to be two), |has not materialized as yet. |Wikipedia is not a newspaper: this incident just has not developed enough to merit a stand-alone article. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:XBALL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: significant amount of secondary source coverage from multiple different  references that all satisfy  and are non-local in nature. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: This has definite potential to become a notable lawsuit. I'd waited because I was hoping that it'd gain more coverage. Is it there right now? Not really. The lawsuit got a reasonably large amount of media attention, but it's died down fairly quickly. Until this goes to court, this is probably best summarized in Ferguson's article since he was the one who initially filed the lawsuit. I do see where a senator is trying to pass a bill that would allow for people to refuse service based on their "religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience", although I'll be completely blunt in that I doubt very, '''''very''''' seriously that something like that would ever get passed. (Or at least I hope it won't.) In any case, there are multiple things that show that this has the potential to become notable in its own right. It's just not there yet and this is just slightly  to really claim notability right now. I say that we redirect with the history for now and just watch the proceedings. If/when it becomes notable, we can always un-redirect it and flesh it out some more with the newest proceedings
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)