Deletion of Valerie Eliot

Comment: Hardly a nonentity, she passes GNG - for example http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-two-mrs-eliots-since-the-death-of-t-s-eliot-in-1965-his-second-wife-valerie-has-been-an-exemplary-literary-widow-fiercely-guarding-her-husbands-estate-and-turning-the-editing-of-his-letters-into-her-lifes-work-she-rarely-gives-interviews-but-the-release-of-tom--viv-a-glossy-film-about-eliot-and-his-first-wife-vivienne-has-prompted-her-to-talk-1372161.html this in The Independent, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/29/classics.thomasstearnseliot this in the Guardian, to take a couple of items from the top of the Google list. The only argument for deletion, therefore, can be that she is disqualified by virtue of having been married to TS Eliot and her notability stems from that relationship, in which case she can be dealt with merely in passing under her husband's article. But I think the evidence is that as his literary executor she has far more importance and she has been a widow for a long time. If TS Eliot had appointed somebody who was not a relative as literary executor, and they had exerted the same influence over his legacy, and attacted the same attention, they would surely qualify for an entry. The mere fact of a relationhip cannot in itself disqualify, nor does it under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)