The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Killeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed. Non-notable individual; fails WP:POLITICIAN William S. Saturn (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject has never won an election, and hasn't even come close, either. Angryapathy (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, as well as WP:GNG. Most of the citations linked in the article are either non-working or make little or no mention of her. No significant coverage whatsoever.--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to coverage of her perennial campaigning, she has received coverage for her career as an environmental and drug legalization activist: [1][2][3][4]. In any case, I think a selective Merge to Perennial candidate#United States would be a better idea than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles with a focus on activism and not necessarily the individual, do not establish notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (article creator vote). What I wrote 4 years ago still applies, even if some of the then-live references are dead. "Killeen is a perrenial presidential candidate, and has had multiple articles published about her. If anyone has Lexis-Nexus, do a 1996 search for her name. These articles are not easily linkable. I disagree that all the references are trivial, while some are, they are included for what they reference. Other sources have her as the feature of the article." I no longer am active on Wikipedia but I think this individual is notable, and I hope that someone is willing to prove it. --CastAStone/^/(talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor citations and limited notability as a result of her limited votes. SOXROX (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. First AFD closed with a "clean keep" so a little more input would be helpful to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--passes WP:GNG with multiple articles about her as the main subject in places like the LA Times, Boston Globe, and Austin American-Statesman. Contrary to User: William S. Saturn, these are articles primarily concerned with Killeen. They write about her activism, because that's what she's known for, but the main topic of the articles is her efforts (as opposed to an article about crank candidates that mentions her briefly). Meelar (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reversal of my earlier position. Per sources added by Qrsdogg and comments of Meelar, WP:GNG is met.--JayJasper (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.