Deletion of Kat Swift (2nd nomination)

Comment: As a politician, she has never been elected.  The previous AFD was kept primarily based on the |belief she would be a presidential candidate in 2008; in fact she failed to gain the nomination for her party.  This leaves only the  to reasonably measure notability against.  I see lots of mentions, and she is quoted a lot in her roles with the Green Party, but no songificant coverage about her that would establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008#Green Party; subject has been mentioned in multiple non-primary |reliable sources, that being said the subject has not received |significant coverage in any of those sources, and it is my opinion that added up together there is not enough that will add up as a single significant coverage source. Therefore the subject fails . Furthermore the subject fails ; that being said the subject was a nominee for a national office, as such  is relevant and a redirect is prescribed where the subject has received some coverage (even significant coverage) for being a candidate for a notable event as the subject can be seen as falling under 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ANYBIO||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: In the previous discussion, most editors assumed that she would be the Green Party candidate for the 2008 presidential election; assumed that sources would be available as a result of running for president; and as such the article ought to be kept.  Now that 2008 has passed, we know that not only did she not run for president, she didn't even win the Green party presidential nomination.  The expected coverage didn't materialise.   seemed to be the predominat reason for keeping, but that is really a reason for deleting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)