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 delete. On balance, this discussion is unconvinced of this politician's spouse's independent claim to notability.  Sandstein  18:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Prusack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

By our long-standing rule for political spouses, will not be notable unless her husband wins the election for President-- or unless she does something notable in her own right. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A perfectly reasonable assumption, however WP:INHERIT makes it clear that an article can exist "even if they are known solely for such a relationship". This covers individuals like Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio - she has no career except being a politician's wife, and Michael Haley (South Carolina), who has a job about which there would be no coverage if his wife wasn't Governor. The standard for keeping is GNG. The point is having a guideline is that when a spouse accumulates enough profiles, interviews, coverage to pass GNG, s/he passes, even though they have no notability aside from the relationship to a notable politician (this also applies to other close personal relationships - Tiffany Trump, perhaps even a valet or a nanny, provided multiple reliable publications write him/her up.

• In this case, I decided to keep the article extremely brief for now. I could add banal material from many publications over the several years that they have been a couple - the coverage is both geographically extensive, and has been going on for a number of years. Frankly, I would prefer to leave this brief for now, but available to expansion if stuff happens (like coverage of something in her past; significant participation in the campaign, or, you know, they move into the White House.

• As I explained on this article's talk page when I created the article this morning, during a campaign users expect articles on candidate spouses, and, therefore, they existed this year for spouses of all of the serious candidates in the Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So, E.M.Gregory, are you writing Keep, in bold lettering?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the WP:GNG with in-depth sources here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Outside of being the longtime partner of a presidential candidate, she is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just being "being the longtime partner of a presidential candidate" suffices. See WP:INHERIT and my comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG per above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:INHERIT: "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". She was not the first lady of New Mexico (if somebody wants to create an article about Dee Simms, I would think that article would survive). She's just dating somebody who is currently polling at around 10% in the United States presidential elections, 2016. Although that's an impressive feat for a 3rd party candidate, their dates are not notable. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited, so a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for garnering some media coverage in the context of happening to be in a relationship with someone who, by virtue of his notability claim, is going to have his personal life invaded by the media almost by definition. WP:GNG is not passed just because sources exist; if that were true we'd have to keep articles about presidents of local PTAs and owners of hot dog stands, because coverage of people at that level of significance does exist too. Rather, the sources do have to be covering her in a context that constitutes a reason why she might belong in an encyclopedia. In the (unlikely, but never say never) event that Johnson wins the election, she'll qualify for an article as the incoming First Lady of the United States — but "is dating a candidate for president" is not, in and of itself, a reason why we would need to maintain an article about her if we can't really say much more about her than that. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? Your statement WP:GNG is not passed just because sources exist -- what kind of argument is that? Here's the GNG guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list -- and this subject does receive significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't see any guideline that requires sources to be covering a person in a specific context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if all media coverage that exists at all were able to fulfill GNG just by existing, then we would have to keep articles about presidents of local PTAs, and owners of hot dog stands, and smalltown city councillors, and winners of local poetry contests, and fire chiefs, and people who got profiled in a newspaper's real estate section for buying a condo, and teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for their high school football team despite having a non-standard number of toes on their feet, and many other classes of people who do have media coverage but are still not of substantively encyclopedic interest. But we don't keep those types of articles, even though they can be sourced to media coverage, because the context in which the coverage is being given does enter into whether that coverage counts as notability-conferring coverage or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy generally assumes that write-ups in local news sources (which might talk about a hot dog stand owner or PTA president) don't really count. But that is not a factor here. Prusack is the significant other of a presidential candidate -- which is why she's getting national attention in respectable national and international media sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when did "significant other of a presidential candidate, about whom nothing substantive can be written besides the fact that she's married to a presidential candidate" become a class of topic encyclopedias were expected to have articles about? Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the International Business Times wrote this and Daily Caller wrote this. They think Prusack is important; QED meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 26 Augus this].--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC) And the Colorado Statesman thinks she's cute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Business Times also recently published an article about a man with an abnormally large penis applying for disability benefits — and an attempted Wikipedia article about said man did not survive AFD just because the story had made the International Business Times, because the substance of what he was getting covered for was not something that would be expected to get someone into an encyclopedia. And Daily Caller is an ideologically-slanted clickbait site, not a real or reliable media outlet. So my point still stands: even if the coverage is going international, the substance of what the coverage is for still has to be encyclopedic in nature. And we don't care what the Colorado Statesman thinks of her looks either, because (a) people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being good-looking, and (b) the article is not about Kate Prusack, but merely namechecks her existence in the process of having Gary Johnson, not Kate Prusack, as its primary subject — a source which namechecks a person's existence, but is not about her, does not contribute GNG points. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, the New York Times has published articles about people with large penises, so does that disqualify the NYTimes as a news source? Of course not. The International Business Times founded in 2005 has seven national editions and four languages; do you really think anything they wrote about Kate Prusack -- including seven facts -- (contradicting your idea that it was 'substanceless' without context) -- anything in that article isn't true?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop misinterpreting me. The "guy with big penis" article doesn't permanently invalidate IBT or the NYT from ever being a reliable source for anything at all, and I never said that it did — what I said is that it demonstrates that the context in which the coverage is being given has to be taken into account in determining whether the coverage aids passage of GNG or not.

Having a big penis isn't an encyclopedic claim of notability, so the fact that the story got into IBT or the NYT doesn't help get that guy over GNG; being the spouse or common-law partner of an as yet unelected candidate for president isn't an encyclopedic claim of notability in and of itself, so the fact that IBT or the NYT happened to publish a story about her in that context doesn't aid passage of GNG. For some other examples: a person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because the real estate section of the New York Times ran an article about the interior design of their condo. A person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because he gave soundbite to the IBT about attending a parade. A person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because her name appears in a newspaper's food column as the writer of a letter asking for a kale recipe (and I'll note, for the record, that you're the one who once tried to stake somebody's GNG claim on a kale letter.)

Coverage has to do more than just verify that a person exists to count toward GNG: that coverage has to be about the person doing something that would constitute a reason why they'd belong in an encyclopedia. Newspapers routinely cover lots of things that still don't belong in encyclopedias, so the mere fact that newspaper coverage exists does not satisfy GNG if the coverage isn't about anything significantly encyclopedic in nature. And sure, the IBT article "verifies" seven "facts" about her: but out of those seven facts, the number that are noteworthy facts that a person would get into an encyclopedia for is zero. That's what I'm talking about when I say the content is substanceless: it's not that the coverage contains no facts at all; it's that the coverage contains no noteworthy facts at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INHERIT and WP:TOOSOON. The woman isn't even married to Johnson, she was never first lady of New Mexico while he was governor. Fails WP:GNG in a big way. Unless being a real-estate agent is now notable for encyclopedic inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Keep explained below. Previously advised: ...and redirect to Johnson's entry, for almost entirely practical reasons. I agree with just about everything E.M. Gregory is saying here, to the extent I can easily imagine myself make the same decision about starting the entry, had it occurred to me. The tone of this AfD, though, has made me concerned with neutrality issues a standalone entry is likely to attract (e.g. some, let's call it, wide variation in perspectives on how their partnership should be characterized); I think E.M. Gregory has done a really good job selecting limited facts that can be verifiably and neutrally represented, and I think the best way to encourage WP coverage of Prusack to stay so judicious is to keep her as a section on Johnson's page (perhaps a subsection under Personal life?), until any more expansive coverage can be sourced equally robustly.

(My view's informed by my sense we may never get more major-outlet-level sources--since Johnson is being covered for the way he affects the campaign rather than any anticipation--barring some huge development--he and Prusack might become POTUS and FLOTUS, it's entirely possible to me that the press won't vet her the way they do for major-party Presidential and even Vice-Presidential spouses. If I felt more sure the sources were forthcoming, I wouldn't trouble us with the hassle of saying let's merge for now and re-expand later.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a rational and pretty persuasive argument (not very different than what I said on talk when I started this page,) but I think we should keep it for now on a sort of level playing field argument. We had articles on all of the 2016 spouses, even those with no career outside marriage at all (Columba Bush, Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio) and on spouses of long shot candidates (Jane O'Meara Sanders,Candy Carson. We have articles on (Karen Pence and Anne Holton, although I see nothing to indicate that either of them would have an article if she was not married to a notable politician. We may indeed have to protect the page (this was recently necessary with Karen Pence). But WP:INHERIT is written to enable pages on spouses of well known politicians, and our users seem to expect there to be such a page, at least Ann Holton and Kate Prusack each got ~1000 page views yesterday [1], [2]. My fear is that it would appear partial to have a page on spouses of some candidates but not others. We do not want to appear to favor some candidates over others. My suggestion is that we leave this up until it is clear whether or not Johnson will appear in the national broadcast debates. If he doesn't, I will strongly support rolling this into Johnson's page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point too. I'm torn but at minimum I assume no one is suggesting we close this AfD early so I'll switch my ivote to neutral while I'm still thinking about it--I mean, if the Boston Globe runs a big reported piece on her in the next four days, that'd resolve this for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I'm persuaded. My big concern was that if I felt (as I think I still do) the best encyclopedic treatment we could give her (in light of present sourcing) would be through a merge, but I ivoted in some other way for fear of political blowback--that actually would be partial treatment! But the fact is there's enormous variation in what extent of coverage we require of a subject (I am currently also participating in one AfD where a subject has even less coverage than Prusack but may yet pass; and another with easily ten times as many sources that seems like to get merged anyway), so including a subject on the basis of the sources like what we have here isn't at all outside the bounds of the standard AfD treatment we give all subjects. And within those bounds, I do think it's good encyclopedic practice not to err in the direction of eliminating or reducing down the entry for a potentially significant figure. So, keep for now, we can revisit in a couple months. (And frankly should per guidelines about low-profile individuals.) If this comes back up and I overlook it, feel free to ping me--happy to contribute now that I've memorized the sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG. We aren't looking at INHERIT since there is a GNG claim. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:TOOSOON. The subject is not individually notable yet per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is absolutely no claim of notability here and I second the arguments by Bearcat. This is essentially a WP:BIO1E. Editors need to realise that a subject needs to be independently notable. Otherwise, every single employee of a company who is quoted in the article would be notable. GNG is a guideline which is supposed to be used in context of our WP:NOT policies. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not supposed to create articles simply because the subject is somehow associated with a political candidate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also GNG is not a free pass to an article. A certain "Casey Shomaker" would probably pass GNG by these [3], [4], [5], [6]. That's doesn't mean we create an article on the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lemongirl942, thank you so much for weighing in on this. I was thinking yesterday that this entry + AfD really illustrated how much better geodiversity can make Wikipedia/how impoverished WP is by the deficit. If you or others know more WP editors who work on politics (or biographies or gender or whatever) in countries other than the U.S. and might be willing to look at this, it seems to me it'd be quite useful and not canvassing to ping some of them? Unless I'm wrong on whether that's valid thing to do in which case ignore me on that, and just, thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (change iVote to keep and perhaps post-election) merge into a brief section in Gary Johnson, expanding the material presently on that page with sources and material on this page. Reason is, that when I started this page Johnson had a tiny but mathematically possible shot of getting into the fall debates and becoming a major candidate. This morning, Reason [7] makes that look like a statistical near-impossibility. So, I move to redirect, merge. If - and Lord knows stranger things have happened this election cycle - Johnson steps onto the stage as a 3rd debater alongside Trump and Clinton, I will suggest that we move this back to mainspace at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  data wonks may be amused by the extent to which the pageview stats on this page track the Johnson fade picked up in yesterday's poll numberss [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, we might be chasing our tails a bit here--it's been up a week and basically those of us in this discussion are the only ones editing it! Which I think obviates my concern about neutrality within the entry--either she won't be in the press more and the entry will be ignored, or new press on her/Johnson will attract attention to the entry, and then we'll likely have more sources to base more content on. In the meantime, I think there's basically no harm in having an entry on her; you persuaded me of the potential harm in taking it down; and while I previously worried a little about false balance, on examination I think six sentences on her compared with, say, the Bill Clinton entry and the 18 standalone pages forked out from it are actually a reasonably good portrayal of the relative significance! (I also think the average WP reader--in contrast to the much small grouper of editors--has no idea we'd even consider NOT including her, so there's a risk of something like false imbalance, if I may.) I think benign neglect until this thing is over for sure is the best route. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC) (And by "neglect" I mean I added it to my watchlist and will both keep a close eye on it and also commit to soliciting uninvolved opinion if issues arise. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

rethinking -again Chuckle. OK, you persuaded me. I changed my iVote above. I strive to be user-friendly, and the reality is that voters want a reliable, easy way to find the basic biographical info on candidates. They just do. I see it as a basic part of what we do here. We should keep this plain-vanilla article on this candidate'f partner because our readers find this sort of article useful, and because is reliably sourced to stodgy, mainstream media. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - couldn't you just use a redirect to Johnson article area describing their relationship to aid our readers? --Malerooster (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC) ps, sorry, I see you already suggested that. --Malerooster (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean adding more info there than is found on spouses in other candidate pages. Plus, while I've been out getting a sunburn in honor of Labor Day, Johnson has been making headlines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page gets 800 - 1100 page views every day, which persuades me that our users want this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume the notability is not very temporary, and that is what you seem to be saying in small type a little above, for all the information the page provides, a redirect would eerve the purpose equally well. Going by pgaeviews for the period a person is in the news is not a grounds for notability, but rather the reason we have BLP 1E and NOTNEWS. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am saying 1.) spouses of all candidates with a shot at occupying the White House have articles. 2.) Our readers expect to find such pages and our readers do use this page. 3.) If/when Johnson loses the potential (granted, it is small) to become President, I will merge this page into Johnson's bio page (presumably on Nov. 8, perhaps earlier, or later if the Electoral College redirects this question to Congress). Until then, I continue to think that it is best to have this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Violent comment. I have no particular opinion along the keep-delete axis, but want to respond to the idea that the number of pageviews matters when establishing notability. To most other websites, CTR, DAU, and similar TLAs are what drives all product decisions. I should know, I work for one of those places. But, we're not most other websites. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and we have standards for what should and shouldn't be included. Just like WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good argument, neither should WP:THEYLIKEIT be. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above comments that there is no claim of notability asserted. No notability independent of her partner. MB 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of repeating myself, as stipulated in WP:INHERIT, "No notability independent of her partner," and "no claim of notability" aside from the relationship is required for the partner of a prominent politician to be notable, as long as coverage exists to pass GNG. Scroll to top of page for full explanation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note WP:INHERIT reads: "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."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She is not notable in and of herself. She would become notable if and when Gary Johnson becomes president, which is not currently the case, and unlikely to be the case in the future. In my opinion, she does not pass the WP:GNG as coverage of her is not "significant". And we should not include too much information about his partner in the Gary Johnson article, as Wikipedia is not a bin for all information, but only information that is relevant and is of some importance. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that I don't hear your argument, it's that more of our users come to this page ever day [9]; she has the media profiles that would get a page kept if she was a minor singer, politician, or beauty pageant winner; all facts in article are reliably sourced to reliable media (stuff like her college graduation year, her major, and what she does for a living); WP:INHERIT contradicts your first assertion (we DO KEEP articles on people closely connected to political figures who are not "notable in and of herself," and, well, WP:IAR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to achieve notability on her own merits. I see no reason to believe she is "'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." *Seen a Mike* 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000+ readers each day disagree with you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there are good arguments on both sides of this AfD; I do want to register, though, that I don't agree all political spouses are necessarily non-notable until their spouse is elected. At very high levels--certainly in the U.S., in other places as well--the press often treats political spouses as if they are essentially also running for a public office. We may wish spouses did not play such a significant role--we may consider it anti-democratic--we may find it sexist to premise a woman's notability on her role as wife or potential wife--conversely we may be inclined to presume wives don't play an important role in their husband's campaign--but if press attention to a political wife plays a role in the campaign (particularly one like this, which reliable sources are treating as an event of world-historical scale), I'm inclined to see WP:NPOV obliging us (mercifully permitting us??) to defer to editorial judgment of reliable secondary sources rather than deciding amongst ourselves how much spouses count for. So I'm much more sympathetic to arguments about adequacy of sourcing for notability, than to "she's not important" arguments. But thus far I continue to believe we've satisfied the spirit of WP:WHYN with the sources to develop a balanced, neutral and moreover stable entry, and I don't think she has less coverage than others who have sometimes passed GNG here. Combined with the significance of the event she's related to (I'm informed by the WP:BIO1E instruction that minor figures related to a single event may still merit a page when the event is as significant as, e.g., JFK's assassination), and the reader interest, I continue to think this standalone page does not hurt and rather helps the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Changing my iVote. Oddly, 2 dramatic events happened. Balanced Rebellion, which almost put him into the debates, but, yesterday, the Aleppo gaffe, which appears to have ended any probability of his becoming a major candidate. I say we redirect this to a condensed section on Gary Johnson, keeping sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out Balanced Rebellion: it's awfully clever and the most interesting idea I've yet seen come out of this election cycle. Rebbing 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to record I nevertheless continue to think we should keep it--because of DGG's reminder of NOTNEWS! But whatever the conclusion of this AfD, most of all I'm glad the topic's been so thoroughly examined. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from page creator I promise that if this page is left in place, I will revisit on Nov. 9 (or, if outcome is still in doubt on 9 Nov. - and this year, God only knows - as soon as possible before Jan. 20) and either source and improve the article beyond reproach, or bring it back to AFD. However, due to the undeniable fact that not only is my personal WP:CRYSTAL BALL shattered to useless shards of glass, fact is that NO ONE in this country has any more of a clue than I do who will come down with pneumonia next. I therefore urge the next experienced editor who swings by to close this as no consensus, in the expectation that on Nov.8, Prusack's notability will become markedly notably less moot than it is is today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sums up my NOTNEWS feeling. I reiterate my promise also to watch the watchman, and note that the entry has continued to remain completely stable. If it's not broke, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - after being unable to identity Aleppo, what tiny chance her paramour had to get a few electoral votes became zero, and anyway, she would follow the rule that notability is not inherited. As of September 2016^[update] I have seen virtually nothing written up in reliable sources about this woman. I would not oppose a redirect per E.M.Gregory, for the same reasons. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 12 September 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.