Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler
This lawsuit was only in the news for a few days, and only because there was anticipation about the stay would affect the larger Fiat sale.  As mentioned above, all the Supreme Court did was refuse a stay, which is its usual reaction to a petition to stay &mdash; it didn't even grant certiorari (agreeing to hear the actual case) as far as I know, let alone decide anything.  In other words, this hasn't been a Supreme Court case yet.  This lawsuit is still alive, and yet it's not really in the news anymore.  Maybe if it is accepted and ruled on by the Supreme Court, a decision would be notable; but it hasn't been accepted &mdash; it's just an appellate case, not reversing the original court, that the Supreme Court hasn't even taken up (yet if at all).  Whether the disposition of bondholders in bankruptcy is notable is something for |reliable sources to determine &mdash and the vast majority of this suit's news coverage was about whether it was holding up the Fiat date, not about its merits.  The possibility of the Fiat sale falling through was the notable event, not the court case.  I realize there was also some coverage of the actual issues in the case &mdash; as cited in the article &mdash; but it was mostly political pundits on both sides; it wasn't the main thrust of the coverage from reliable sources.  That all said, I'm reluctant to recommend deleting an article that had some work put into it &mdash; but it did start out as a strong  pushing|POV pushing article, and hasn't gotten much better.  If something that shouldn't have been a separate article has turned into a long, |neutral article, maybe it should stay &mdash; but when one starts out non-neutral and would still require quite a large amount of research to become neutral, it's probably easier to merge the neutral parts and delete the lengthy one-sided detail that should have never happened in the first place.  And until there are  that this court case actually ''is'' a landmark case in financial law, not just a disputed aberration that is part of some other important subject, this subject isn't notable enough for its own article
— User:Closeapple, 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:POV||WP:NPOV||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)