Deletion of Susan Lindauer (2nd nomination)

Comment: this isn't really a close call, she easily meets  and there's more than "one event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per consensus at the previous AfD where it was established that, because the coverage is almost entirely about her arrest and trial, the intent of  is met. Now that I have seen the article and had a chance to look at the sources, it is clear that to me that that view is correct. I also point out that the DRV was tainted by canvassing, badgering, and dishonesty by the DRV nominator and a strong case could have been made for endorsing the original close procedurally
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Sources meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: further to my reply to {{ul|Two kinds of pork}} up above:  is not an inclusion standard. We have it to protect the privacy of otherwise unremarkable individuals who get unwittingly tied up in news coverage of an event they were marginally involved in, for which they do not actively seek attention. Such individuals should be entitled to their privacy, so as a rule we don't write about them. Lindauer is not such an individual. She actively seeks the attention she's getting here, and has continued seeking this attention for a substantial period of time, thus she is not entitled to the BLP1E treatment. She easily passes 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: all coverage relates to a case that received ephemeral interest in 2004 and 2008, ending in 2009.  At least one reference does not mention the subject at all. Much of the coverage seems driven by the fact that her father was a politician and that she worked as congressional staff and, to that extent, would fail under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)