Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Cruz

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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW: not all keep arguments are equally strong, and some are not policy-based at all, but there is such an overwhelming majority voting to keep that it is hard to imagine the consensus swaying the other way. If another admin decides that this is too early, they are free to revert. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Heidi Cruz

Heidi Cruz (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)

Article subject is not notable on her own. Fails WP:GNG and falls under WP:INHERIT -- notability is not inherited, even during a presidential campaign. Coverage on her is only in relation to her husband's campaign, not about her on her own merit.

The article is a fair size, but is largely a puff piece padded with WP:UNDUE weighted content about article subject's husband, Senator Ted Cruz. Once deleted, any relevant content about the article subject could be moved into that article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "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." This wording was worked out earlier this year in response to a spate of AFDs on candidate spouses. And see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

KEEP! She is a beautiful woman and mother. Ted Cruz is so far behind that he can use all the help from women that can relate to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.121.113 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The photo should be deleted. It's really bad. And the article needs to be fixed. I tried, but I was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Subject is notable for her political career. If the page is to keep, someone needs to take an ax to the Role in 2016 presidential campaign section. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, Heidi Cruz doesn't have a political career. Her husband does. That in mind, your reason for keeping the article makes no sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

She worked as a top deputy to US Trade Rep. Robert Zellik and was director of the National Security Council. Seems somewhat notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

NSA is not partisan and working for US Trade is also not partisan. Looks like she had some heavy-duty employment, but it wasn't political. Neither were her positions enough to make her notable per WP:GNG. Many people work for the NSA and US Trade (or have other big-time jobs), that doesn't make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but I just don't see the notability other than being Ted Cruz' wife, and as it has been pointed out already, WP:INHERIT states notability isn't inherited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I call "wrong" to the comments above. She DID have "heavy-duty employment" because she was a senior advisor to the Bush for President campaign and after Bush won the Presidency Bush appointed her to political appointee positions at the State Department, at National Security Agency, and in the White House itself. She worked directly for President Bush. She was and is a national politician. She worked directly for Condi Rice because she was appointed to a PARTISAN Political appointed position. Winkelvi's comment that working at the State and U.S. Trade and NSA and The White House is not political and is not partisan is flat out wrong. She only got those positions because she worked on the campaign and every single agency in the Federal government has a certain number of political positions that are filled with the President's policy advisors--these positions are specifically designed for political types that implement and follow through with policy changes. That was what all of her positions were. Also, how can Winkelvi ignore the fact that she worked directly in the White House? How is that non-partisan? It isn't. -- ML (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose "political" career wouldn't be the correct description. Her stint at NSC and US Trade appeared significant enough but after doing some digging, not many sources cover it in depth, only in passing mention. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Article subject is the wife of a United States senator and is an integral part of his campaign team. Skatz613 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first edit in Wikipedia is to this AFD? That's certainly not suspicious.

Aside from that: Being the wife of a senator doesn't mean she meets WP:GNG to have a Wikipedia article about her. Notability is not inherited. As far as being "an integral part of his campaign team": this reason seems manufactured/like original research. Regardless, it's still not enough to have a Wikipedia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me? You are the one who flagged this for deletion. Who asked you to do that? Are you paid to do this stuff or are you a volunteer? I am certain you will not tell me.

Actually Cruz herself was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleeza Rice. </nowiki> Heidi Cruz also served as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative to USTR head Robert Zoellick. At USTR Heidi worked on U.S.-China trade policy. How can you say that she does not have a political career? Moreover in a period of about 3 weeks she has had about 150,000 views, which means (1) she is a person who is of interest to the public, and (2)that she does have a political career as a wife actively involved in her husband's presidential campaign. In addition, she was an active member of an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, an NGO "think-tank, "where she was on a task force that included Canadian, American, and Mexican academics and business people, but which dealt with policy relating to all three countries. Skatz613 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Easy does it. Nobody is attacking you. No need to make bold assertions here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not being attacked. But you do look like a meatpuppet or sockpuppet at this point. Coming here as your first edit? That's certainly not a coincidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi attacked me even though the sources I provided are true and accurate, so that was directed at him, sorry Meatsgains.

Winkelvi, what do you mean with your charge of "original research"? Did you check my citations? I have been an editor for many years, not on Wiki, but for other journals. I am documenting all of this because quite frankly the public deserves to have a total picture of a person's affiliations, not just what Chad Sweet wants people to know. Censorship and democracy are mutually exclusive. Skatz613 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep If you notice WP:INHERIT is an essay not a policy. In WP:INHERIT it states "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." Well she does have significant coverage from reliable sources, a lot of them are because of Ted Cruz's presidential run but if you notice a lot of those articles are about her, who she is and what she said or did not just trivial mentions. I do think there is a lot of puff that needs to removed because of WP:UNDUE. In addition to her previous work as a top deputy U.S. Trade Rep and director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council makes her also notable. If perhaps Ted Cruz was not running for President, those two roles she had would not warrant an article of her own but because of the combined extensive coverage about her and previous positions I believe she meets WP:GNG.JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Coverage is what makes one notable by Wikipedia standards. The coverage on her is solely about her husband and her being his wife. Being his wife does not make her notable. If her husband were not running for president, there would be no coverage on her. So, then, when her husband doesn't get the nomination or gets the nomination and loses, what do we do with her article? By your notability standards (that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, by the way), she is no longer notable and her article would need to be deleted. Why keep an article that would be deleted when her "notability" disappears? All of this is precisely why WP:INHERIT was written. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. WP:INHERIT may I remind you is a ESSAY, Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Notability isn't temporary. Precisely my point. Your reasoning above, however, pretty much says that because of her husband's campaign for president, she's notable. By your reasoning, once he loses, she will no longer be notable. QED. And, for the record, WP:INHERIT isn't an essay. It's part of the bigger picture presented at WP:NRV and WP:N as a whole. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point, I'm saying notability for her has already been established because she meets WP:GNG, doesn't matter if WP:INHERIT applies, because of the significant coverage of her by reliable sources she meets WP:GNG. Now if the coverage were to go away because of Ted Cruz losing the nomination/general election it wouldn't matter because her notability has been established and Notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You can continue to say she is notable all you like. It still doesn't make it true for Wikipedia's purposes as described in WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Having you read WP:GNG? WP:INHERIT aside ignore that, how does she not meet the requirements. She has significant coverage, from reliable sources that are independent from the subject and are have in depth coverage of her. By that standards from what I'm seeing from the citations in the article and online she does meet WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi:, you wrote: "The coverage on her is solely about her husband and her being his wife." There is no tactful way to say this -- this assertion is clearly false. Please review WP:BEFORE. If you do, and realize you made a mistake, the best thing you could do would be to withdraw your nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what those puppets are. All I know is that Wiki is supposed to be an accurate and complete rendering of a person. I have been a Wiki user for over a decade. However, I tried to edit the article itself to add information about the Council on Foreign Relations stint because I noticed it wasn't in there. But when I came back to it, it wouldn't let me because it said the entire entry was flagged for deletion. Definition of political: of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. I think the USTR (trade) and NSC (security) fall under the category of the government, would you not say? Skatz613 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. There's extensive coverage about her, sufficient to pass GNG and any relevant guidance from WP:INHERIT, warranting a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a meat or sockpuppet.Skatz613 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, then... you say you have edited previously. Under what account did you previously edit? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am an editor. That is what I do for print publications, not Wiki, but I understand the value of citations, which is why I provided them. I am a Wiki user. Sorry if that was not clear, but again why are you attacking me? I am not arguing that I am a better Wiki editor compared to you. I am merely stating my background. Skatz613 (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I am a Wiki user", "I am not a meat or sockpuppet". And you just ended up here out of the blue as your first and only contributions? Color me extremely skeptical. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you read the citations there are articles about her. One even interviews someone that said Heidi Cruz should/could run for office. Skatz613 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- I don't believe this nomination complied with WP:BEFORE. Yes, notability is not inherited. A relative of a very notable person has to measure up to WP:GNG, or one of the specialty notability guidelines, all by themselves. Some of the existing references are about Heidi, and only peripherally mention her husband. So, she measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi you are perfectly fine attacking me although I explained myself above. Why can't I suddenly decide to edit for Wiki? Doesn't everyone start that way? Isn't that what Wiki is about? I never noticed anything incomplete before this on Wiki, so I never felt I had anything to do. But you failed to answer: why did you flag this for deletion? Why is it that you can question my motives but I cannot question yours? Don't you have to have a reason to even notice the article you flag for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatz613 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- Article meets criteria for...well, everything. I'd honestly just be repeating the other arguments above. Informant16 23 March 2016

• Keep While being the wife of a notable person doesn't necessarily make a person notable, this subject's affiliation with Goldman Sachs makes her notable since it has been the beneficiary of a Federal bailout. This bridge between a sitting senator who may be the next President, and this tremendously influential investment firm make her a person of special note. That, and the significant amount of media coverage she has received.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep --- She is a politician who is notable. She worked on the Bush For President campaign in 2000. She was appointed to THREE political appointments during after Bush was elected President. ALL of her government experience was POLITICAL PARTISAN appointments where she assisted in forming POLICY. She worked for Condi Rice at State, she worked in The White House, and she worked at the NSA. She was a economic policy advisor to George W. Bush during Bush's run for the Presidency. She is a politician. She is highly covered in the press--ALL aspects of her life and that coverage includes discussions of her political career before her Goldman Sachs career.--ML (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks notability. The lead section should establish notability, but what we find there is that she (1) "is an American investment manager at Goldman Sachs" -- Which isn't encyclopedically notable, (2) is a "former economic policy advisor to the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign" -- Again, that isn't encyclopedially notable, and (3) that she was "an appointed government official in the Bush Adminstration" -- Once more, that isn't encyclopedically notable. Also, (4) "She is the wife of Republican Texas senator and 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz" -- But that, again, isn't encyclopedically notable either. In short, notablility hasn't been established. I also noticed the WP article on Ted Cruz has been around for 11 years; the one on Heidi Cruz, less than 11 months. Did she suddenly become notable after her husband announce his run from the US Presidency last year? I also noticed an abnormally high number of sources for an article this size...but, per WP rules, the article could have numerous sources, but that doesn't establish notability (which could be established with as little as 3 sources, perhaps less). Finally, I ask, "Frankly, setting aside every other argument, whether herein or not, would the majority of the world have ever heard of Heidi Cruz if it hadn't been because she happens to be Ted Cruz's wife?" I think that if Ted Cruz one day becomes President, then, as First Lady, Heidi Cruz will engage in activities that will, by default, establish her notability...at that point the Heidi Cruz article could then be re-instated, but publishing it now is contrary to Wikipedia notability rules. Mercy11 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally, someone who understands notability from both Wikipedia's standpoint and an encyclopedic standpoint. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious! What you are saying, Winkelvi, is that: "Finally, someone who agrees with me and since the other 10 don't agree with me they can't possibly know what they are talking about!!!" Give it a break, she passes WP:GNG.--ML (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep She easily meets WP:GNG. There is a lot of coverage of her in multiple, independent reliable sources. While a bunch of it is about her connections to her husband and his political career, there's a whole bunch more that is not. She's held multiple positions in government, independent of her husband, and that work has been sufficiently covered in secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's rules defining notability. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:INHERIT is not applicable in this case because it specifically says, "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." She clearly meets GNG as someone who has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - It's obviously notable for all the reasons that have been repeatedly listed above. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone educate me for a minute here? How does an article get selected to be deleted? The reason I am asking is because I was trying to add to this article but I couldn't finish my edit. When I returned to finish it after an hour or two, there was the delete flag on it so that is why I started posting here, even though you all are experienced at the Wiki notations and guidelines and this AFD stuff is new to me. I just want to know how this article got picked to be deleted, was it random or did Winkelvi himself select it? Thank you! Skatz613 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You can find all the whys and wherefores here: WP:AFD. David in DC (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep She easily meets WP:GNG, especially as her life and background come under scrutiny and she has been personally attacked by a leading presidential candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.210 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep As per WP:SNOWBALL. Note that the spouses of ALL major Presidentail candidates have pages. (Even spouses of former candidates: Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio) And the reason is that they draw sufficient in-depth press coverage to pass WP:GNG. This applies even to non-entities like Todd Palin, and once that level of notability s achieved, WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Very good point, E.M.Gregory. Todd Palin was the spouse of a failed VP candidate, but yet he still has an article AND he is still talked about in the news 8 years later (e.g., his recent dog sled crash injuries).--ML (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE In this case, however, an AFD template article is doubly inappropriate. First, because it makes Wikipedia look stupid and petty (80,000 people viewed this page yesterday. Second, (no matter how pure the motives of Nom may have been) because it gives the impression that Wikipedia allows itself to be used for partisan advantage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• You don't have to have accomplished anything to become notable. Kitty Dukakis still has an article about her on Wikipedia. She was a politician's wife. But people want to know about who might be a heartbeat away from the POTUS. This is a Keep Bruriyah (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep As I wrote of Jeanette Rubio elsewhere, I don't believe Heidi Cruz has any accomplishments that might merit an encyclopedia article, but she clearly satisfies our notability guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep she Provides her husband with Insurance and it was nationally televised which is how I become familiar with her many years ago she provides insurance for her Husband through her job with GoldmanSachs rather than him being under Obammmacare a big showboat event for him years ago which was a Farce since they (senators ) get what they want it's all a Joke her affiliation with the busch Family & Goldman Sachs alone maker it clear she is notable.:(I moved this misplaced iVote from top of the page to here. It was written by as the first edit of : Ktdbubba99. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

• Please keep. I just swerved into this conversation as, after hearing the mutual and unfortunate nastiness regarding the Cruz and Trump wives, I wanted to get some reliable information about Heidi Cruz. So, I came to the article, and seeing the deletion possibility, I came here. I urge the continuation of the article. But then, I also want the Cesar Gracie article continued by reinstating it, and it is gone. So, perhaps I'm wrong. To me, they are both notable enough according to what I read.Horst59 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Utterly common and noteworthy to have an article about the spouse of a leading presidential candidate. Would be absurd to delete it. Moncrief (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - to delete would question the viability of wikipedia It seems the idea to delete is absurd. This is then new era of American politics and even thought it is tasteless; it is reality.--Wikipietime (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

An example headline from the Washington Post; Cruz to Trump: ‘Donald, you’re a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone.’--Wikipietime (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as subject meets the requirements of relevant notability guidelines due to substantial and non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 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.