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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply not notable, fails WP:GNG. Would have no mentions in media at all if her husband was not a senator and formerly a presidential candidate. Notability is not inherited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This wording was worked out earlier this year in response to a spate of AFDs on candidate spouses. Having articles on people like Kitty Dukakis and Todd Palin, who have no notability outside the spousal relationship - and keeping them after the campaign because of the substantive media coverage - is a longstanding Wikipedia practice. And also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument is not that she inherits notability from her spouse. The argument, as in the recent AFD, is that her marriage has produced coverage that is sufficiently extensive and in-depth to maker her notable as per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While I am of the opinion that Ms. Rubio has no accomplishments that might merit an encyclopedia article, she clearly satisfies our notability guidelines, as the previous AfD discussion established. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ms. Rubio is notable. She meets WP:GNG. This AfD discussion is a waste of time, just like the Heidi Cruz AfD.--ML (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Cruz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this a joke? She is notable enough for an article and meets WP:GNG. This is a waste of time. Informant16 24 March 2016 (TC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG easily. It doesn't matter why she passes GNG, only that she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources in the article, and over half focus on her and not her husband. Mattlore (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2016 (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.