Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Killeen

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 Keep. — Scientizzle 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Killeen

Fringe candidate with a peak performance of 393 votes in a Presidential Election. There are a few references, but they are all mainly trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While she may not get many votes, her presidential candidacy appears notable. Mh29255 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(article creator vote). 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.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, explore Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008--CastAStone /^/(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only argument against this that I can determine is trivial coverage, but since this candidate has received unique coverage (ie not just one article copied around) from such a variety of reliable sources over a period of time, I think that that collective coverage cannot be described as trivial. Joshdboz (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, respectfully, where is this coverage? All of the references supplied in the article are either "list of minor candidates" style directories, or they make a single mention of Killeen amongst some other fringe candidates. There are, as far as I can tell, no articles about Killeen or her candidature that are indepedent of the subject. But please point out if I am incorrect on this point =). Lankiveil (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the references are barely acceptable there are numerous others on Google News Archive. Because of her fringe pro-pot views ("Hemp Lady") and profession (nun) she has received odd bits of coverage that other candidates with the same level of support may not. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rationale for deletion here is completely absurd. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Killeen's candidacy is an example of equal opportunity in our electoral process. A candidate may enter the New Hampshire primary after making a $1000 fee. (CSpan network 1-1-08) If Killeen's press coverage is 'trivial', it probably reflects campaign funds available to her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.190.52 (talk • contribs)

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.