Deletion of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (2nd nomination)

Comment: The lawsuit lasted only 2 months and never resulted in a decision or precedent. It just isn't independently notable enough to warrant it's own article. And yes, the material in this article is already handled in the Werner Erhard article and has been for some time.  This article about the lawsuit began as a  by an editor who has since been sanctioned for creating these sorts of biased articles about this individual.  This article was an attempt to give new life to old allegations that never were anything more than allegations. This is unduly harmful to a living person and against the spirit of . Given that there is no notability to the lawsuit itself, and that the material is handled in the Werner Erhard article already, there is no justification for keeping this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: Per , there seem to be many reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It seems that the entirety of the article is really contained in the lede. A case was filed, then withdrawn by the plaintiff.  The remainder of the article (and most or all of the sources but for the primary source of the filing history) are allegations by one side or the other which were not resolved in the case (as it was withdrawn).  Those allegations already have attention in the article on Mr. Erhard (and I note that it appears most or all allegations were withdrawn at some point).  I agree as above that this article takes a non-notable lawsuit (filed and withdrawn with no documented notable impact) and uses it as a  to expand on the allegations and avoid the scrutiny of  that those same expansions would incur if placed in the  article. If this article weren't already here at AfD, I would be inclined to speedy-remove the majority of it as  violation. Lastly, searches of web content for the case only find mirrors and a single book which is simply a bound edition of this article and others from Wikipedia on this subject.  The existence of that book only serves to further argue for strict adherence to BLP policies, even on non-BIO articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)