Deletion of Kate Prusack

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, Click-through rate|CTR, Daily active users|DAU, and similar Three-letter acronym|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  isn't a good argument, neither should  be
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:THEYLIKEIT)

Comment: Meets the  with in-depth sources http://www.ibtimes.com/who-gary-johnsons-future-wife-kate-prusack-7-facts-about-libertarian-candidates-2394057 here and https://www.romper.com/p/who-is-gary-johnsons-fiancee-kate-prusack-is-his-longtime-partner-13779 here and http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/23/meet-kate-prusack-gary-johnsons-fiance here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and .  The woman isn't even married to Johnson, she was never first lady of New Mexico while he was governor.  Fails  in a big way.  Unless being a real-estate agent is now notable for encyclopedic inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:TOOSOON||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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}} I have seen |virtually nothing written up in |reliable sources about this woman. I would not oppose a redirect per {{U|E.M.Gregory}}, for the same reasons
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: Easily passes  per above sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per : "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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

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  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  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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:WHYN||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: There is absolutely no claim of notability here and I second the arguments by {{u|Bearcat}}. This is essentially a . 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and . The subject is not individually notable yet per available sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:TOOSOON)