Deletion of Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio

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

Comment: the talk about  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 . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: Easily passes . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)