Deletion of Larry Fortensky

Comment: this can be distinguished.  Fortensky has popped up in the news from time to time since Taylor's death, while Hutton has not. Fortensky had a very public and messy marriage with Taylor, but Hutton was Closeted|in Mercury's closet. Fortensky has been a celebrity in his own right (even if unearned) but, as one editor wrote in that AfD, "Everything ... on Jim Hutton is directly linked to Mercury."  A same-sex partner can be notable in his or her own right (see David Furnish and Tam O'Shaughnessy), so sexual orientation doesn't matter. The nomination creates |a false equivilency where none exists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: Our decision here should not be based on whether he DESERVES notability, but whether he HAS notability. In fact he has received lots of significant coverage from reliable sources over the years. You and I may think he's not worthy of that notice, but that's a value judgment and inappropriate. The coverage is there, and recent coverage is about HIM and not just about Taylor, so it's not a case of . By Wikipedia standards he is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)