Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio


 * 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. Wikipedia's editorial community does not decide what is or is not notable enough to be stored in the annexes of history, that is the job of the world. It is merely our duty to create and maintain the electronic filing of the history provided by the society of the world into this encyclopedia. And it appears in this case that the world has decided that, Mrs. Rubio - the wife of Marco Rubio - is notable due to her marriage to this presidential candidate (proven by the sources provided in the article, and referenced in this discussion). Therefore, per WP:GNG and the fifth pillar WP:IAR, it is found by the community at-large - and the strongest policy backed arguments in this request - that the subject of this article is indeed notable, and merits its own independent page to cover the subject. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neutral nomination: editors have suggested the article does not meet WP:GNG. Listing on AfD for broader discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect to Marco Rubio. See RFC at Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes_Rubio -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article covers a top level cheerleader. This is the third attempt in as many days to get this article deleted. When the merging discussions both at Marco Rubios and Jeanettes talk pages failed now you try AfD. This person is notable per WP:GNG. Being a Miami Dolphins cheerleader is not "just being a cheerleader", it is a big deal in the states and is a notable work and gives celebrity and role model status for the person. It is the top of the cheerleader status league we could say. Also her other work which is mentioned in the article is within WP:GNG. Clearly keep worthy article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * She was a cheerleader for only about a year and that's not what makes her notable, as this in-depth NYT profile makes clear. Jonathunder (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is like saying if Usain Bolt had been a top level runner for only about a year, that would not have been notable. It is a flawed reasoning Being a top level cheerleader is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jonathunder, you nominated someone for deletion as a GNG failure and then linked to an "in-depth NYT profile" less than 24 hours later. Do you see the problem here? --BDD (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a neutral nomination. I'm not sure how you missed that. Jonathunder (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By not reading closely enough. My apologies. I haven't been following the related discussions, but if BabbaQ is correct that merge discussions decided to keep separate articles, this all seems unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

*Question: Is it appropriate to have both a merging discussion and a AfD ongoing at the same time? Especially since it is the second Merging discussion in just a few days of the same article. Either have one or the other (Merging discussion or AfD).BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Create a redirect to Marco Rubio. A woman is not a celebrity or notable simply because she married someone who is a celebrity and notable. Mercy11 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that she has been a top level professional cheerleader is kind of strange. She isnt just known for marrying a politician so your reasoning is flawed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to all cheerleaders, nor even to all cheerleaders for "top level" teams in professional sports. What's lacking here is any reliable source coverage that's specifically about her cheerleading; all of the sources here are about her being a politician's wife, and just mention her cheerleading by way of background information. And that's not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable for having been a cheerleader. Frex, she worked as a cheerleader in the 1990s, but there's not a single source here dated any earlier than 2010 — for her to become notable as a cheerleader, there would have to be some coverage contemporary to her work as a cheerleader (i.e. dated in the 1990s.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if (a) enough coverage specifically of her cheerleading can be found to suggest notability as a cheerleader, or (b) Marco Rubio ends up as the President or Vice-President of the United States after the election this fall, thus making Jeanette either the First or Second Lady — but nothing written or sourced here suggests enough notability to make this article keepable today. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, I know and admire your work policing pages on political figures, and appreciate your efforts to bring articles on small-town mayors and candidates for city council up for deletion. However, arguing for deletion on the grounds that Mrs. Rubio was a non-notable cheerleader is a red herring; it's beneath you.  This  article  is supported by in-depth coverage in the New York Times, Tampa Bay Times, The Hill, because there is an understanding on the part of editors of serious media that spouses of candidates matter.  Rubio is a major candidate for the Presidency, and even if you and I see a no-accomplishment cheerleader, the interest in Mrs. Rubio as a the spouse of a potential President has generated the kind of in-depth coverage in serious media that passes WP:GNG.  I urge you to take a second look at the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't make up this "not notable as a cheerleader" angle on my own as a "red herring" — it was a direct response to someone who, just a few comments above if you look carefully, directly advanced the argument that her cheerleading did make her notable independently of any WP:NOTINHERITED quibbles about her marriage. It was already argued earlier on this same page that this is an article about a notable cheerleader who merely happens to also have, by the way, married a politician too — so I was responding to that argument, not making up grounds of my own. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge (same as several "Delete" and "Keep" above). This is not about a top-level cheerleader who won any notable cheerleading competition. Agreeing with Bearcat that the meager sourcing doesn't support cheerleading (or dancing) as the topic of any contemporaneous 3rd party article. Heck, not one is even contemporary about her being in the swimsuit calendar! Being an anonymous background dancing body in a notable organization isn't notable in and of itself. But the finance fiasco belongs in the Rubio article (it's mostly a quote from Rubio anyway), and the rest can be merged into Rubio's personal section. If she becomes a First Lady, then she'll be more notable. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: it's a borderline case, I think, but the folks who think she's notable because she was a cheerleader are completely missing why the article was created and clearly haven't considered the sources. As a political spouse she might just be notable; as a former cheerleader, not so much. Jonathunder (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Would she be notable solely as a cheerleader or a political spouse? I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. There are multiple reliable, independent sources about her. That's all we need. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect All the sources in the article are either focused on Marco Rubio or on Jeanette as the wife of Marco Rubio. Not seeing anything that confers notability outside of her marriage. Also not seeing anything that needs to be merged that is not already n the other article so this is a !vote for a straight redirect (probably aimed at Marco Rubio). AIR corn (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Er, guys, you do know that there's an election going on? This article got 1,000 views today, presumably because her husband might become President and people want to know who she is. We have articles on  Melania Trump, Mary Pat Christie, and Heidi Cruz, but also on Columba Bush who, like Jeanette Rubio, has had no career except marriage and Candy Carson, despite an AFD, Articles for deletion/Candy Carson.  The article is here because people want to know who a candidate's spouse is.  Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses of politicians (categorized by state)  Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed.  The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything.  If people are interested in who the spouse of a politician, even spouses of demonstrably no accomplishment can have enough coverage in major media to justify articles.  even cheerleaders; think: Todd Palin. This is true because WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc.  We do not ask what a subject is notable for.  We are only here to judge whether sources that support notability exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of other stuff exists. On the other hand, there is not an article for Jane O'Meara Driscoll, who is married to Bernie Sanders. Jonathunder (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is, however, plenty: of sourcing to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jane O’Meara Sanders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is not "other stuff" It is as User:BDD says, that she has generated coverage to pass WP:GNG, coverage that is in-depth, widespread, has continued over time, etc. The deletion argument, by User:Cwobeel: "Her notability emanates solely for being married to Marco Rubio, and as such the article should be merged and redirected there."  is trumped by the fact of the extensive, intensive, in-depth coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, however, that no amount of coverage can constitute enough coverage to get a person into Wikipedia if the context that said coverage exists in is explicitly deprecated as a notability claim by a Wikipedia rule like WP:NOTINHERITED. For example, media do cover celebrities giving birth to children in enough depth that GNG can be claimed for the baby — the problem is that the context of said coverage isn't providing a substantive reason why the child should exist as the topic of a standalone Wikipedia BLP separately from their famous parent, rather than just being mentioned within the parent's article. You can very often claim WP:GNG if a celebrity marries a non-famous person, on the basis of coverage of the wedding itself — but the context of that coverage doesn't support a standalone BLP. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. It is trumped by WP:GNG.  We differ on whether the lengthy, in-depth profiles in major media, and coverage of this woman's career as a political spouse - coverage going back well over a decade - suffice to meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, I could disagree more. NOTINHERITED (an essay section) can't trump GNG. It's a Wikipedia practice, not a comment on the world at large. Someone can become notable due to their relations; if the world at large deems someone notable, it's not our place to ask ourselves why. NOTINHERITED explains why I can't write an article on Bernie Sanders's nephew and then just argue "But his uncle's a senator and presidential candidate!" But if multiple independent sources wrote profile of his nephew, he passes GNG.
 * With respect, you're using WP:AADD all wrong. No one is saying keep (only) "because she's Marco Rubio's wife." That would be cause for an appeal to NOTINHERITED. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - enough coverage exists, as show above, to show that they pass notability criteria on their own, and are not simply relying on inherited notability. Whether we like it or not, when you reach this level in American politics, the media is going to provide the coverage Wikipedia requires.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, the talk about WP:NOTINHERITED is irrelevant to this discussion because she's not just notable because she's his wife. She's notable for her coverage in the news, and there are enough RS about her. Someone mentioned Bernie Sander's wife, and she doesn't have a page because there isn't the same amount of RS to pass WP:GNG. Honestly, I didn't even know Sanders was married! But... the kind of politics that Rubio is involved in means that the media is focusing more about what kind of family he has, etc, rather than on issues, like Sanders' campaign seems to. When people look something up, I want them to have a neutral source to find out info about someone. If people are talking about Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio, then we need an article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.